A Snafu of Peer Reviewing. . . .
Well, this is a new one for me. I'd sent out an article for review about 3 1/2 months ago. The other day, the editor responds that the article had been rejected, which is fine, but no explanation was given -- and no reader's reports. So I wrote back, asking about them. Since the journal had the article for nearly four months, I assumed such reports existed.
The sub-editor wrote back:
For my part, I can't really see why the first reason (compromised anonymity) would apply -- it's not that hard, I don't think, to make oneself anonymous. That leaves the second reason. The sub-editor's response was purposefully vague but, reading behind the lines, the reports were either (A) vapid or incompetent, which seems unlikely for a top-line journal, or (B) so unnecessarily abusive that the editor decided to spare me psychological anguish.**
My imagination, of course, gravitates toward the most melodramatic reason, i.e. the "abusive" thesis, and the situation is familiar to me from Scientia -- some of our more inexperienced reviewers could be way too harsh, so sometimes I or my co-editor would edit down the unhelpful bits. A good editor does censure out those unhelpful reviews.
I don't know why I received no reader reports, ultimately, but it's still aggravating to have an article languishing for months without any substantive feedback. Waste of time, really. Nothing to do but roll-up the ole' sleeves and send out the poor little darling back out again, though.
-----------
** A third option exists, I suppose -- the reviewers were simply "blah" about the argument, even if well-written, so rejected the piece. That must be pretty common for journals that receive 150+ submissions per year. If that was the case, though, there's no reason to refrain from sending along the reports.
The sub-editor wrote back:
We leave it to the discretion of our readers and editors whether to include the readers’ reports with the verdict. While it is uncommon that both readers decline to share their reports, it does happen. While I am not privy to the specific circumstances of your case, readers typically decline to share if they think that their anonymity is compromised by their comments. Likewise, if the editors feel that a report is unhelpful—for any number of reasons—for the author, they will not include it.So, huh.
For my part, I can't really see why the first reason (compromised anonymity) would apply -- it's not that hard, I don't think, to make oneself anonymous. That leaves the second reason. The sub-editor's response was purposefully vague but, reading behind the lines, the reports were either (A) vapid or incompetent, which seems unlikely for a top-line journal, or (B) so unnecessarily abusive that the editor decided to spare me psychological anguish.**
My imagination, of course, gravitates toward the most melodramatic reason, i.e. the "abusive" thesis, and the situation is familiar to me from Scientia -- some of our more inexperienced reviewers could be way too harsh, so sometimes I or my co-editor would edit down the unhelpful bits. A good editor does censure out those unhelpful reviews.
I don't know why I received no reader reports, ultimately, but it's still aggravating to have an article languishing for months without any substantive feedback. Waste of time, really. Nothing to do but roll-up the ole' sleeves and send out the poor little darling back out again, though.
-----------
** A third option exists, I suppose -- the reviewers were simply "blah" about the argument, even if well-written, so rejected the piece. That must be pretty common for journals that receive 150+ submissions per year. If that was the case, though, there's no reason to refrain from sending along the reports.
Comments
Post a Comment