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
"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>.