peer review: selecting and helping vs. shaping

[Lise Menn]

I'm not sure about that, Martin.  The author always has the option of  
seeking another journal if s/he gets a 'revise/resubmit'. I've been on  
both sides of that recommendation, and in all of my cases, the problem  
was not a matter of the theory, but of how much a single paper could  
accomplish and/or of needing restructuring in order to make a coherent  
argument.
	Lise

On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:32 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:

> Yes, peer review often has the effect of improving a paper, but in  
> my experience, it is equally often the case that a paper changes in  
> the direction desired by the reviewers, without really getting  
> better. The author wants to publish the paper in the journal, so she  
> goes out of her way to please the reviewers.
>
> I think this latter outcome, which is really unfortunate, could be  
> avoided by giving authors just one of two decisions: "accept with  
> recommended revisions" or "reject".
>
> If the paper is accepted with recommended revisions, the author can  
> then make use of those suggestions from the reviewers that he finds  
> helpful, while ignoring those that would lead into directions he  
> doesn't want to take.
>
> So if we eliminate "revise and resubmit", we would retain the  
> positive effects of peer review, while getting rid of the negative  
> effects that arise from reviewers who feel they want to shape a  
> paper. The task of reviewers should be to help authors improve the  
> paper, and to advise the editor on which papers to select for  
> publication. Their task should not be to shape the paper.
>
> Martin Haspelmath
>
> Lise Menn wrote:
>> I think peer review by and large not only works very well, but is  
>> an excellent teaching tool. I have frequently taught courses on  
>> writing for publication in linguistics in which I begin with a ms  
>> of mine that has been labeled 'revise and resubmit' by a journal  
>> editor. I let students read it without telling them what the  
>> judgement was. Then I show them the comments from the journal  
>> reviewers. They are shocked at how, let us say, direct some  
>> reviewers are in their criticisms. Then I show them the ms after it  
>> has been corrected to respond to the reviewers' objections. No  
>> matter what they thought of the original version, they all agree  
>> that the final, accepted ms is superior and that the peer-reviewers  
>> were very helpful to the process, even the particularly nasty ones.
>>
>> This exercise also has the effect of reducing the fear of  
>> submission that some graduate students have. It makes them feel  
>> like 'Gee, if Dan can get published, anybody can. Even me.' And  
>> that of course is exactly what I am trying to get across in the  
>> class about publishing and the usefulness of peer review.
>>
>> Dan
>
>
> -- 
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de)
> Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher  
> Platz 6	
> D-04103 Leipzig      Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.)  
> +49-341-980 1616
>
>
>
>
>

Lise Menn                      Home Office: 303-444-4274
1625 Mariposa Ave	Fax: 303-413-0017
Boulder CO 80302
http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html	

Professor Emerita of Linguistics
Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science
University of  Colorado

Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics]
Fellow, Linguistic Society of America

Campus Mail Address:
UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science

Campus Physical Address:
CINC 234
1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder