Peer review plays a big role in scientific publishing, but it doesn’t always go smoothly. Many researchers, like Nyssa Silbiger, have faced harsh criticisms from reviewers. In her case, a review of her PhD research included rude comments that made her doubt her place in science. This type of feedback can be damaging, especially for young scientists trying to find their footing.
Silbiger and Amber Stubler conducted a survey in 2019 with about 1,100 scientists. The results were eye-opening: 58% of respondents had experienced unprofessional comments during peer review. This was particularly true for women, non-binary individuals, and scientists of color, who reported feeling less confident and less productive because of it.
Experts in academia agree that reviewers often cross the line. “There’s always a respectful way to critique research,” says Sally Thomas, a spokesperson for the Palaeontological Association. She encourages reviewers to start with something positive before discussing any issues.
So, why does this problem persist? Some reviewers believe that being harsh helps maintain high standards. Others may be motivated by competition, churning out comments meant to undermine rival researchers.
Cultural differences can also play a role. What sounds rude to one person might be seen as straightforward to another. Not all harsh reviews come from malice; sometimes they’re just a reflection of the reviewer’s style or lack of experience.
To combat this, many journals are moving toward more transparent peer-review processes. For example, double-anonymous reviews keep both the author’s and reviewer’s identities hidden. This helps mitigate bias against certain demographics. Research from IOP Publishing found that using double-anonymous reviews improved acceptance rates for scientists from Africa by 4%.
If you’re an author facing harsh criticism, it helps to assess whether the feedback is constructive. Mirvat Alasnag, a cardiologist, suggests focusing on comments that can genuinely improve the paper while ignoring personal attacks. If faced with egregious remarks, authors can reach out to the journal’s editor. Writing a structured, respectful email can bring attention to the issue, as Silbiger learned when her supervisor addressed unprofessional feedback directly with the editor.
In summary, peer review is essential for maintaining the quality of scientific work, but it needs to be constructive. By fostering a more respectful environment and adopting transparent processes, the academic community can help ensure that all voices are heard and valued. For more insights on this issue, you can refer to resources from established platforms like Nature or explore the BMJ’s peer review process.
Source link
Careers,Peer review,Publishing,Scientific community,Science,Humanities and Social Sciences,multidisciplinary
