peer review: selecting and helping vs. shaping

[Daniel L. Everett]

I agree, Lise. I am still not quite understanding the problem with 'revise and resubmit'. Seems like a perfectly sensible recommendation.

I have occasionally decided to submit papers elsewhere because I disagreed with the recommendations of the reviewers. There are plenty of journals, after all (though this doesn't completely rule out the possibility that the same reviewer might get the same ms in succession from more than one journal).

And on at least two occasions that I can remember, an article of mine that received a very negative review was nevertheless still published in the journal - without revision -  (in one case in the most competitive theoretical journal at that time) because the editor thought that the referee had blown it. The editor said explicitly that he was setting aside the referee report (the paper fell within his area of expertise).

My own impression is that most editors and referees are competent and reasonable and that the process still works well.

But I also think that there are times when self-publishing can make more sense. Rarely. But not never.

What am I missing, Martin?

Dan



On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Lise Menn wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
>