Writing #5--Don't be this guy! And don't be me.

I recently witnessed a most unfortunate incident.  An author misinterpreted the editor's letter, which had rejected the paper but invited resubmission.  The author thought that two reviewers had colluded and submitted almost identical reviews.  He documented what he (thought he) saw.  And he wrote to the editor about it.

So far so good.

Was I that editor?  No, and this is where things went badly awry.  The author, who was definitely on his high horse, copied all the other editors of the journal.  That's how I found out about it.  I did a "reply all", stripping out all the recipients except the other editors, and indicated that I thought it did kind of look bad.  I should not have done that, but the saving grace was that my comment only went to the other editors.  Unfortunately, not all of the people who reacted to the author's email stripped out the authors.  An investigation was launched.

So far so good, sort of.

Here's the kicker:  The editor in question is in a distant time zone.  He hadn't even had a chance to see the original email before a bunch of people reacted.  It turned out that the author had misunderstood the letter and that, in fact, the editor had gone the extra mile on behalf of the author, seeking clarification on one of the reviews.  Somehow, the author understood the original review and the clarification as two different reviews that were almost identical (and they were--they were basically the same review from the same reviewer).

Needless to say, the original editor was peeved that people had jumped in, especially by promising to the author an "investigation", without giving him time to wake up and explain the situation.  I apologized to my fellow editor.  To his credit, the author apologized to everyone, not just the original editor, for jumping to conclusions and popping off.

The moral of the story is, if you think there's something wrong, talk to the individual first.  Don't email everyone associated with the journal in your initial complaint.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reviewing #7--To sign or not to sign?

Whether you sign your reviews is a personal decision, and I would never question someone who decides on anonymity.  But, here's my take on it.  I decided from my first review request, which must have been some time in the early or mid-1980s, to sign all my reviews.  I did this despite the fact that most people opted for anonymity and many women often concealed their sex by using only initials (I also decided to publish using my full name). I made this decision for one reason.  I felt (and still feel) that if I were critical of someone's work, I should have the courage of my convictions.  Science is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, and hiding behind anonymity in reviews is not, in my mind, conducive to that kind of transparency.  I would sign my reviews of NSF proposals, if NSF would let me (they will not allow you to sign, and will strip out any attempt to do so). I cannot know what I don't know, so I have no idea if this decision has ha...
Read more

Reviewing #2--What makes a good review?

The most important task for a reviewer is to do a good review.  By "good", I mean constructive and as comprehensive as you have time for but comprehensive enough (see "constructive"). Don't pull your punches, but don't be sarcastic or dismissive, either.  One would think this would go without saying, but it's not.  So what do I mean when I say "don't pull your punches"? Human nature is such that we read the good and ignore the bad.  If you wrap all the negative comments in cotton, the author(s) will misread them or won't take them seriously.  So it's best to just be straightforward and candid.  Explain what the problem is and why it's a problem (and there may be multiple problems).  And, if you are so inclined, suggest a solution.  If you cite references, be sure to provide them. Basically, follow the Golden Rule.  Ask yourself if your review will either help the author(s) improve the manuscript, or if the manuscript cann...
Read more

Reviewing #3--Why should I review papers?

Let's face it, reviewing even short papers is time consuming, and time is at a premium.  There is little reward. Reviewing can have a direct impact on your career in only two instances I can think of. One is, if you're going up for tenure and have reviewed papers for major journals and still managed to excel in other respects, that's a feather in your cap.  Being invited to review papers for major journals early in your career looks good on the CV (or resume).  After all, it may mean someone outside your university knows who you are and respects you (or someone inside your university recommended you--either way, it's good).  The other instance is after tenure.  If your CV does not show that you have done any reviewing, it can be a bit negative because of the expectation that you should be using your expertise to give back to the community. But those impacts are low.  No one is denied tenure or further promotion and pay raises because they didn't do any ...
Read more