Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] The Sad State of Physics Education Research Refereeing (was Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. . . .)



Dear Editor Morrison,

If you reply to this relatively long (9 kB) message please don't hit the reply button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.

Many thanks for your consideration [Morrison (2012)] of my post "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno" [Hake (2012a)].

In my opinion, the errors, misunderstandings, irrelevancies, and juvenile judgments in the reviews by your two anonymous referees typify the sad state of Physics Education Research (PER) referring. Your judgment based on these vacuous reviews that "they are not positive enough to support my reading of your paper at this time" is consistent with Ambrose Bierce's definition of an editor (see the signature quote below).

In "Roediger's Tips for Reviewers" [Hake (2011)] I wrote [bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . . "; YES, I realize that bracket lines are unorthodox and may not be understood by Podolefsky and others, but they serve to: (a) avoid (in most cases) awkward quotes within quotes ". . . .'........'. . . .", and (b) clearly indicate (to those who understand them) who said what, unlike the ambiguous marginal angle brackets ">", ">>", ">>>," ">>>>". . . . . or marginal lines "|," "||," "|||," "||||. . . . .that befoul many posts.]

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Among Roediger's (2007) valuable TIPS for reviewers are [bracketed by RT-RT-RT. . . . "; my inserts at ". . . . . . [[insert]]. . . ."]:

RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. SIGN YOUR REVIEW. . . . . . .[[IMHO this is the most important of Roediger's tips - but almost never done by Physics Education Research (PER) reviewers]]. . . . . . Or, if you can't bring yourself to do that, at least write your review as if the author will learn your identity and you wouldn't be embarrassed. I sign all of my reviews and have done so for many years. I THINK IF EVERYONE DID, MOST OF THE PROBLEMS OF NASTINESS IN REVIEWING WOULD DISAPPEAR. . . . .[[My CAPS.]]. . . . As psychologists have repeatedly shown (e.g.,
Zimbardo's prison experiment). . . . . [[<http://bit.ly/Tz7aq2>]] . . . . ., human beings do not display their best behavior when they are cloaked behind the mask of anonymity. Signed reviews will usually be more polite and diplomatic, with much less tendency for brutal, unvarnished criticism. Of course, you still want to give your honest opinion, but (as discussed above) there are helpful and unhelpful ways of relating that opinion.
RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT-RT

My experience has been that most PER reviewers are in drastic need of reviewing and benefiting from Roediger's TIPS. . . .[[and most urgently #6 above]]. . . .

BTW -There may be few reviewers of PER article submissions who are "Good Reviewers" and for whom Roediger's TIPS have already been internalized. If such reviewers wish to get in step with the PER's army of "Bad Reviewers," I strongly recommend Mohammad Sal Moslehian's "How To Be a Bad Referee?!" HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Regards,

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52>

"Thanks for the opportunity to let off a bit of steam."
- Economics Nobelist Paul Krugman when asked to describe instances in which journals had rejected his papers -see Gans & Shepherd (1994). Anyone for doing a Gans/Shepherd-type study for the Physics Education Research field?

"EDITOR, n. A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos."
Ambrose Bierce in "The Devil's Dictionary" online at
<http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/972> and
<http://www.ambrosebierce.org/dictionary.htm>.
I thank the late Len Jossem for this quote and its online sources. According to Len an obolus is "A Greek silver coin worth 1/6 drachma that was used to pay the ferryman Charon to row the dead body across the River Styx."
See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_Bierce>.


REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 07 Nov 2012.]
Gans, J.S. & G.B. Shepherd. 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1): 165-179; online as a 1.6 MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/mRd589>. See also Shepherd (1994). Anyone for doing a Gans/Shepherd -type study for PER?

Hake, R.R. 2011. "Roediger's Tips for Reviewers," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/pPrHqY>. Post of 3 Aug 2011 10:27:03 -0700to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/mTRHLe> with a provision for comments. See also Hake (2012b).

Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w>. Post of 7 Nov 2012 13:49:33-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/Qp8fnA> with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. "Re: refereeing," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/RMLS8q>. Post 26 Jan 2012 09:10:28-0800 to Phys-L and PhysLrnR.

Morrison, A. 2002. Re: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno," online on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/Zdhw2w>. Post of 8 Nov 2012 15:37:07-0600 to PhysLrnR.

Moslehian, M.S. 2010a. "How To Be a Bad Referee?!"online at <http://bit.ly/ranWvb>. Evidently derived from Moslehian (2010b).

Moslehian, M.S. 2010b. "Attributes of an Ideal Referee," Notices of the American Mathematical Society, November, p. 1245; online as a 49 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/oDBWIt>.

Roediger III, H.L. 2007. Association for Psychological Science, "The Academic Observer: Twelve Tips for Reviewers," online as a 135 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/TfSbBC>.

Shepherd, G.B. ed., 1994. "Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process." Thomas Horton & Daughters. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/zrEEXx>.