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]

Re: [Phys-l] refereeing



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>.