If you reply to this long (7 kB) post 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.
John Denker (2012) in a Phys-L post "Re: refereeing" wrote [my insert
at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . .":
"Another suggestion . . . .[[regarding reviewing]]. . . : Protect
your anonymity. My default writing style is rather recognizable . .
. . so I have another writing style that I use for reviews. It seems
to work. I've had people comment to me about certain reviews, never
suspecting that I wrote them."
In my opinion, if "Protect your Anonymity" is typical of the advice
that reviewer Denker gives to editors, then editors should ignore
Denker.
In a post "Roediger's Tips for Reviewers" [Hake (2011)], I wrote
[bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . . "]:
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbardo_experiment>]] . . . . .,
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, especially the above
six. . . .[[and most urgently #6]]. . . .
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
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to SDI Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
Academia: <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
"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?
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 26
January 2012.]
Denker, J. 2012. "Re: refereeing," Phys-L post of 25 Jan 2012
22:05:17-0700; online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/A2T25T>.
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 are being transmitted to various discussion lists
(including Phys-L) and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/mTRHLe> with a provision for comments.
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 at
<http://bit.ly/oOR5iQ>.
Shepherd, G.B. ed., 1994. "Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the
Publication Process." Thomas Horton & Daughters. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/zrEEXx>.