What they do
The most important thing to remember about the task of reviewing is the scholastic
camaraderie that lies at the heart of process. Due to the anonymous nature of the
exchange, that process can often seem “detached,” yet it need not be. Recall the
last time you received comments back, whether positive or negative, on your own
work. In the best cases, those comments can be enormously helpful and productive,
and in the worst, they can feel like destructive insults. That doesn’t mean that
we should sacrifice honesty in our feedback for fear of hurting an author’s
feelings. It does mean that we should make the assumption that our words carry
great weight and mean a lot to the authors who read them. The review itself can
serve as an effective and useful teaching moment, and that is just as true for
submissions that are enthusiastically accepted as it is for those that are
vehemently rejected.
That said, such a lofty purpose does not require a lofty tone and style. For
instance, though many reviewers may be more comfortable referring to “the author”
and maintaining a third-person distance, such a convention is not a rule. Since
your review is after all a more or less direct communication between you and the
author, an I-you rapport can be a very effective and efficient means of explaining
and supporting your evaluation. The larger point, though, is to be true to your
own writing style and voice in your dialog.
Finally, as many of us know from grading our students’ papers, it is impossible to
comment on everything. Using “track changes” can actually increase the temptation
to jump in at every moment. Providing too much feedback can be as much of a problem
as not giving enough. A useful rule of thumb is to use your comments within the
text to address “local” issues and reserve the comments at the end for a more
“global” summation.
My reviewer name is ZED. Those aren’t my initials. I just enjoy being ZED for
AEQ, and I have been a reviewer here for over three years. One convention that
I have adopted in all my reviews is to end with the statement: “I hope these
comments are helpful.” Whether I am saying yes, no, or something in between,
it is well meant; I also hope that these tips and guidelines are helpful to you
reviewers.
Read more about Academic Exchange Quarterly Reviewers
|
Why extra shield to protect reviewers
AEQ practices double layer of anonymity: (1) reviews are signed by 3-letter codes
and (2) the reviewer’s name is not listed in the journal unless requested otherwise by the reviewer. Why?   
We like explanation in "Peer review, schmeer review"
Published by odyssey on 13 August 2010 in Blog "Pondering Blather"
        
If I now have to tell potential reviewers their names will be revealed to the authors, what do you think is going to happen?         
If I ask someone to review a manuscript by Professor Standing-Member-Of-The-Study-Section-Your-Grant-Goes-To, what do you         
think they're going to do?
What about a manuscript by Professor Senior-Dood-Who-Has-The-Most-Influence-In-Your-Field?         
Or Professor I-Have-A-Nobel-Prize? Most will find some excuse not to accept the invitation to review         
(especially young faculty if they have any sense). Those that do may not be as unbiased as one would hope.         
Are they really going to trash a manuscript (that deserves it) by someone who has some direct control over their future,         
given that, should the manuscript actually be published the names of the reviewers will be revealed?         
Maybe, maybe not. At least reviewer anonymity provides some semblance of protection against retribution.         
|