I modeled my first efforts at peer review on peer review responses I had previously seen. I suspect this is how most people learn. Later I had dedicated instruction during a qualitative methods course offered at Nova Southeastern University. I also obtained some great resources including this paper (LINK) and the reviewer guide provided by the online journal TQR: The Qualitative Report. One of the things I have long been curious about is the way reviewers address authors. TQR's ready reviewer comments are typically written like a dialogue with the authors, e.g., "I suggest you consider...." although there are also probably some phrased more like "I suggest the authors consider...." - this is more formal but still feels like there is an information exchange. The style I saw more frequently as a new reviewer used phrasing to make it sound (look) as if the reviewer was speaking to someone else (editor, presumably) about the author and their work. I'm not referring to the "confidential comments to editor" space provided by a lot of journal but instead to the peer review comments themselves. This type of wording is more like; "The authors should provide more details in the methods." Perhaps it is a coincidence but this wording also feels more prescriptive: "The authors should cite the 2021 paper by Smith and colleagues, where a similar design is used..." and often includes some less or non-actionable comments: "The authors need to shorten this paper."
Of course I have used this approach myself. In fact, in some reviews (not for TQR or for OJPH, the journal I edit), I feel oddly informal when I speak directly to the authors in my review (e.g., "I suggest you consider reordering the introductory content so simpler concepts are presented before more complex information..."). But I admit I have wondered where this came from as it feels so archaic to me. Relatedly, in my institution there have been recent recommendations made to eliminate syllabus language like: "The student will..." or "in this class, students will have the opportunity..." and instead use language like: "You will..." "In this class, you will have the opportunity...." I'm not certain of the motivation for this but I have identified a parallel for peer reviewers talking about, not to authors. I obtain the pictured book as part of my preparation to co-chair a committee. It does not turn out to be needed, although another committee - the Institutional Review Board - uses some aspects of Roberts Rules of Order - so my learning is not wasted. I admit I was mostly interested in the order of items - the process of introducing, motions and seconds, discussions, etc., and this has turned out to be more complicated but also far more systematic and predictable than my prior experiences suggested. However one interesting convention concerns how speakers talk about other speakers. On page 31 of the brief Roberts, the section titled "Formalities that Avoid Personalities" directs speakers to speak to the chair about other speakers rather than to them. The example given is: "Mr. President, the last speakers' final point doesn't really make sense." (Robert III et al. 2020, p. 31). Voila! (A French term that sort of means "aha" although literally it is more like "here it is!") This now makes some sense as a strategy to keep people from being discourteous or mean to each other. Unfortunately it is not a fail safe. It is fairly easy to say "The authors' research is unnecessary, and was inadequately planned, inappropriately carried out and poorly reported!" Most interesting to me about this is that many of us write peer reviews using this style and train students and junior peers to do the same although in my experience no one has ever explained to me why you talk about authors rather than to them, although since they are reading your comments, you are, in the end, talking/writing to them. I also suspect that suggesting, even requiring personal address, might nudge the general nature of comments toward being a little less unkind than they often are. Reference Robert III, H.M., Honemann, D.H., Balch, T.J., Seabold, D.E. & Gerber, A. (2020). Robert's rules of order newly reviewed in brief (3rd ed.). Public Affairs.
2 Comments
sheryl chatfield
1/4/2024 05:36:00 am
Clearly there is no picture here; also the previous post lacks a hyperlink. I'm having problems with Weebly and connectivity so will edit /correct these things as soon as I am able to!
Reply
3/6/2024 03:20:07 am
Software-defined vehicles represent a groundbreaking shift in automotive technology. These vehicles rely on software to control essential functions traditionally managed by hardware. This approach allows for flexibility, adaptability, and over-the-air updates, enhancing vehicle performance and user experience. Software-defined vehicles pave the way for autonomous driving and smart mobility solutions, marking a significant evolution in the automotive industry towards digitalization and connectivity.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|