Communications of the ACM
Rude Paper Reviews Are Pervasive and Sometimes Harmful, Study Finds
There's a running joke in academia about Reviewer 2. That's the reviewer who doesn't bother to read the manuscript a journal has sent out for evaluation for possible publication, offers condescending or outright offensive comments, and—of course—urges the irrelevant citation of their own work. Such unprofessional conduct is so pervasive there's even a whole Facebook group, more than 25,000 members strong, named "Reviewer 2 Must Be Stopped!"
But it is no laughing matter, according to "Unprofessional Peer Reviews Disproportionately Harm Underrepresented Groups in STEM," published in the journal PeerJ, which find that boorish reviewer comments can have serious negative impacts, especially on authors belonging to marginalized groups.
Peer reviewers are supposed to ensure that journals publish high-quality science, but referee comments often stray far from that mission, the study says. More than half of surveyed respondents reported receiving at least one "unprofessional" review, and a majority of those said they had received multiple problematic comments.
Those comments tended to personally target a scientist, lack constructive criticism, or were just unnecessarily harsh or cruel, the authors report. The authors say they hope their study will help spur discussion of ways to curb unprofessional comments.
From Science
View Full Article
No entries found