In a virtual or physical room full of qualitative researchers, a frequent topic of conversation is the difficulty of publishing qualitative research reports. Although there are many types or sources of difficulty, I think most can be allocated to one of two categories - problems associated with authors and problems associated with peer reviewers. (Problems associated with editors may only be solved by waiting for a new journal editor to take over.) Over the next few weeks, I aim to post some of my thoughts about specific challenges associated with authors and/or peer reviewers. I'll start with one of each today. No matter how much care and thought went into a research project, authors often have a tendency to assume reviewers are correct. Another version of this is the belief that it doesn't matter if reviewers are correct or not - authors still need to follow their guidance. Sometimes when a reviewer may offers advice based on preference rather than scholarly or methodological guidelines, and the thing in question is relatively minor, it may not be worth an argument. I have put things in tables when my preference was not to do so, and duplicated information in tables and text, again, when my preference was not to do so. In my opinion, things like this do not substantially change my report. But if a reviewer provides guidance or makes a demand that is unsupported and/or inconsistent with the method, I believe authors are within their rights to decline (politely, with an explanation) to make a change to their work. One common reviewer trap - that may impact newer reviewers, including graduate students, more so than reviewers with extensive experience - is to assume it is necessary to criticize something in every manuscript. Although nearly all, (probably all) manuscripts can benefit from some revision - for example, reordering or condensing background information - reviewers do not need to provide criticism to demonstrate that they are doing their job. As an editor or co-reviewer, I usually mistrust the one sentence review, e.g., "this is a great paper!!," or "This paper should be published now!," but I think it is possible to be mostly positive and still demonstrate that considered review took place. This may be done by highlighting one or two strengths of the paper while also offering thoughtful constructive criticism, when appropriate. It is unusual in my experience, but not impossible to encounter a paper to review that feels publication-ready as submitted.
Either of these described practices may result from lack of confidence. Authors' confidence in their work may be tentative, especially if they are new to publishing or new to qualitative research. Authors who participate in a qualitative paper but are skeptical about qualitative methods (this seems strange but it happens), may welcome recommendations to nudge their report into something that looks more quantitative, and I have seen several reviewers make recommendations of this type. Reviewers, on the other hand, may be prone to what is popularly called "imposter syndrome" so want to demonstrate their reviewing chops, to counter their own insecure inner voice. In its best instances peer review works like an asynchronous scholarly dialogue - with reviewers asking informed questions and authors providing a little deeper insight into their research process. I consider my extensive involvement in peer reviewing through the past several year as a key part of my education as a writer and researcher. I have had a lot of negative experiences, too, but those make the positive ones seem even sweeter! Photos - of me, by me, using Apple Photo Booth Version 11. Photo editing (crop, filter) done with Weebly built in image adjustment features.
0 Comments
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
|