Peer Review Week 2016 #PeerRvWk16

So apparently it's Peer Review Week 2016, at least on Twitter. I thought I'd take the time to sketch out a few thoughts on the topic.

From my perspective, as someone who has contacted, discussed, and, mainly, negotiated with peer reviewers, they hold a special place in theAdmin's heart. 

To put it bluntly, peer reviewing is what makes the academic world go round. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the reviewers who ensure integrity in what is published, thus helping to create the body of scholarship required for any academic community, are more than just cogs in the great machine of publishing. How should peer reviewers be recognised? This is one of the main questions that pops up when discussing reviewing. For a double blind system to work, recognition is inherently difficult. Open peer review is a different story, but there are inherently difficult issues with both forms. Recognition-wise, is being included in a list at the end of a volume good enough? Is it enough to receive an automated email (however sincere) thanking you for your time and inviting you to submit your own work? 

The answers are, usually, no. Peer reviewers are some of my favourite people. Usually charitable, enthusiastic, innovative, and encouraging scholars who wish for nothing more than to help better their field by helping to create better scholarship. There are of course exceptions, but 9.9/10 who agree, do so with the best interest of the author and the field at heart. I've received countless confidential notes with reviews stating that if this is an ECR instead of a SCR, then they would like to modify the language to be more encouraging....if someone is at the beginning of their scholarly career then there is a massive amount of potential and they'd like to help with development. 

But how do we, as members of academia, recognise this hard work and this development potential? We must, firstly, recognise that what I like to refer to as "Reviewer Fatigue" is a real issue. This is when a good, solid reviewer is asked to review so many times that they either (A) grow tired of it and move on to something else or, more commonly (B) simply cannot complete the number of review requests in the time they have allotted for reviews. Reviewer Fatigue emerges for several reasons, and keeping it at bay was one of my main goals. Editors can quite easily become exasperated with repeated denials to review for whatever reason and so can quite easily begin to rely on a reviewer who repeatedly provides excellent quality - and just as importantly - timely reviews in order to meet the strict copy deadlines. And I don't mean to say that Reviewer Fatigue is generated by editors. The solution is a complicated one - one way theEditor dealt with it was when someone became such an integral part of the journal's processes for this reason, the reviewer was invited to join the editorial board. So, in part, recognition was duly awarded within the constraints of what an academic editor can actually do (keep in mind that who owns the journal and its revenue and who edits/runs the journal are two entirely separate entities, which is a debate for another time).

But I digress. So, what was my main reason for wanting to jot down some thoughts this week? Purely and simply to say one thing: 

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO REVIEWS

Seriously, give yourself a round of applause.......giphy.com

-theAdmin

Guest Post: Writing and Writer's Block as a Professor

This is part two of my two-parter (Part I can be found here). The point of the two-part guest post is to demonstrate a shared experience: writer's block and insecurities are not unique to ECRs. The below post is from a professor at a very highly ranked research university (friends in high places!). The conversation, like so many in academia, began in a bar and took surprisingly little convincing, as we were discussing the struggle of getting a paper written. When asked for the requirements, my three part response was simple: 1) write honestly about the experience 2) be as frank as you wish 3) anonymity will cover 1 and 2. 

So, without further ado, LaProfesseur, unabridged and unedited.

___

When theAdmin suggested I do a blog-style piece on the extent to which experienced academics still suffer from writers’ block, I thought:   ‘Yeah!  That’ll be fun!  I’ll do that right away!’  That was about six months ago. 

So, the answer, emphatically, is yes.  Even when the stakes are pretty low (apart from the threat of the ire* of theAdmin) some of us never do outgrow our love-hate relationship with writing.  I love having written something.  Actually writing something, myehh, not so much.   I still experience many of the same symptoms that I did when I was a novice keen to break in to the world of publishing but uncertain about how to do it.  That includes:  many of the same insecurities about whether I’m saying anything worthwhile; many of the same fears about certain Imagined Readers (I have two Imagined Readers who can freeze me mid-sentence if they pop into my mind);   many of the same infantile procrastination strategies (eyebrow plucking, anyone?).   So if you are looking for reassurance that you will outgrow bad habits and The Dreads, I’m sorry.  So if not comfort, what can an an experienced professor at a highly ranked research-intensive University offer to someone who shares the writer’s block affliction but has only just started to publish? Empathy:  definitely.  It’s hard.  My sympathies.  It’s not just you.  And…perhaps a little advice on how I have learnt to defeat myself (occasionally) at my own games.  A few of my more successful strategies (that is, sometimes they work) are below. 

• ·         Strategy one:  have a really solid outline.  These are not so onerous to write and once it’s done, you really are on your way.  This helps to focus the mind and start the flow.  It also helps to impose coherence.  Entropy is always a risk in the panic of writer’s-block-meets-deadline; a solid framework helps you to avoid it. 
• ·         Strategy two:   write something; anything.  The tyranny of the blank page is a nightmare.  Even a title, your name, a few references that you know you will use in the correct format for your target journal:  it all creates a comforting sense of progress.  I often infill sections of the outline that I know I can do easily or which I feel passionately about.  You can worry about how it all holds together later.
• ·         Strategy three:  speaking of flow, find it and go with it.  I don’t know the provenance of the expression and wouldn’t recommend taking it literally, but I suspect this is the wisdom of ‘write drunk; edit sober’.   Self-editing from a critical place is necessary eventually, but can be paralysing when you are trying to get into the flow.
• ·         Strategy four:  replace those dreaded Imagined Readers with some friendly, supportive people that see things your way and will appreciate your work.  Write for them first.  In later editing, you can defend yourself against the others.

A theme is emerging here, which is about acknowledging writing as a process with easier and more difficult stages.  Making the difficult stages easier and picking the low-hanging fruit of the easy stages allows you to get to a place where you feel the article taking shape.  Then it’s okay to let your more critical self out of that dungeon in your mind.

Ironically, I think I have a reputation for being pretty reliable.  In other words, I do usually manage to get things done despite the procrastination and various forms of torture I put myself through.   For all my flaws, I do respect both negotiated timelines and imposed deadlines; not respecting them only makes things much worse.  That is something I HAVE learnt and it is increasingly true as work intensifies.  Postponements and creative blocks are rarely a product of having too much to do.  You can make those deadlines too – and no-one needs to know the agony behind the scenes.

*NB – the Admin doesn’t really do ire – follow her kind and wise advice!

-LaProfesseur

Guest Post: Writing and Writer's Block as an ECR

Firstly, Happy New Year to all my readers! I hope 2015 brings you all health, wealth, and, of course, published papers! 

Secondly, I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for all the follows, retweets, posts, emails, messages, and comments. It's been great exercising my editorial muscles over the past year and trying to catalogue some of the knowledge that I've accumulated over the past 7 (yikes! has it been that long?) years. 2015 has some exciting things in store - I officially made the switch to freelance at the end of 2014 so will have more time to devote to blogging (haha) alongside my academic career. So do tell all your friends about me. And keep asking questions! 

reactiongifs.us

For being such loyal readers, for your belated Christmas gift, I decided to post this and its counterpart Guest Post: Writing and Writer's Block as a Professor rather than the normal drivel spewing forth from my own keyboard. The two posts are from two ends of the academic spectrum. In the first, theECR comments on getting through the early years of publishing, as well as the lingering fears and anxiety that we all feel. In the second post, LaProfesseur comments on the established years of publishing, as well as the lingering fears and anxiety that we all feel. And thus the idea behind the two guest posts: ECRs are not alone in fears and anxieties. I'm not saying this to scare you into thinking that it'll never go away. Quite the opposite. The intention is to show you that such things are normal and an integral part of an academic career. Learn to deal with them now, and you'll find they'll become much less of an issue. 

So without further ado, here is a completely unedited version of theECR's words:

It’s been over three months since I had my first peer-reviewed article accepted by a top journal in my field and I’m still pinching myself… and still sort of waiting for them to tell me they’ve made some terrible mistake. To put the imposter syndrome aside for a moment (don’t worry, it’s just for a moment…), when theAdmin asked if I’d contribute a post on the writing process, I agreed immediately. I mean, loads of people blog. How hard could it be?

Actually, it’s pretty hard.

So here I am, trying to write a post about writing, writer's block, and my experience, and, guess what? Yep. I have full on writer's block. You really couldn’t make it up. Underpinning this latest bout of writer’s block was the gnawing question of ‘what if people think my post is rubbish’? In fact, substitute ‘post’ for ‘thesis’, ‘chapter’, or ‘article’ and that pretty much typifies my perception of my academic career to date.

How I Feel Most Days...    Tumblr.com

It would’ve been so easy to suffer in silence, to walk even further into what The Thesis Whisperer has called ‘The Valley of Shit’. I was staring at a blank screen. I was worried about how the blog post would be received. I was convinced I couldn’t write anything useful. Worse than that though, I just felt very alone... just me and this blank screen. All this was uncomfortably familiar. It was exactly how I felt when writing my first article.

Yep...my usual response to The Valley of Shit imgur.com

I knew what I had to do… cue a whiney, late night conversation to theAdmin. It didn’t take long before I soon realised that staring at a blank page and all the various neuroses that come with it are actually totally normal. In fact, they’re fairly typical of the ECR experience.

So, that was a pretty long meandering introduction to a simple truth: we get stuck all the time and there’s no shame in that. In fact, part of being an ECR is learning to use our resources and to ensure that we don’t travel through ‘The Valley of Shit’ on our own. We have guidance and enthusiasm. We have structure and plans (my PhD work plan is my pride and joy…). We have serious support networks, which include our supervisors and mentors, colleagues and friends, and lovely people like theAdmin.

These resources are important. They help you get started and they can even keep you going. I mean, is there any better feeling than someone telling you that you’re on the right track, or that your work is actually good?

Feels GOOD!    imgur.com

My experience was one of trial and error, just like yours will be. But let me start at the beginning of the article writing process. As in all academic disciplines, publishing is paramount. What is it they say? Publish or perish? Unfortunately, it’s a reality for all researchers even ECRs. I knew that I needed to have something accepted for publication otherwise I could kiss goodbye any chance of making it on to a job application long list…

The idea for my article came from the first chapter of my thesis. My supervisor thought it was good enough to publish from and actively encouraged me to turn it into an article. He even suggested a journal that would be most suitable. His buy in and belief in my work gave me an initial boost. However, the prospect of transforming an 11,000 word chapter into a 7,000 word article was tough. What should I cut? Would the journal actually like it? Was it too theoretical?

After bashing the article into some sort of respectable first effort, I realised that I needed to call on my support network. I was too close to this work. It was too precious to me and there was the danger that I had lost a certain amount of objectivity. Was I killing enough of my darlings? Thankfully, my supervisor, theAdmin, and another ECR chum were willing to give up their time to read through my first effort. To be honest, it was pretty nerve wracking just asking for their feedback, but I knew that I had to get the article into the best possible shape before I cast it into the depths of the dreaded peer-review process…

I must’ve printed out the article six times to edit it, edit it some more, and maybe a little more after that. Throughout that period, I had convinced myself that this manuscript was going to be instantly rejected. I soon began to doubt the originality of my approach, the breadth and depth of my research, and my ability to write coherently and, more importantly, academically.

This is not an ideal mindset... tumblr.com

Needless to say, submitting through the journal portal (in this case, ScholarOne) was nerve wracking and daunting. I’d followed the formatting instructions (always remember to do that, otherwise people like theAdmin get peeved), I’d uploaded the anonymised document, I’d dotted the Is and crossed the Ts. And I’d seriously run down the battery on theAdmin’s mobile owing to frantic late night nervous texting.

Why so nervous you might ask? Well, there were many reasons… I was putting my research out there for the first time in written form. It was going to be reviewed and critiqued by experts in my field. I was worried that, if it was rejected, I’d have let down both my supervisor and myself. Clicking that ‘Submit Manuscript’ button was hard because it was loaded with so many hang ups and expectations… all of which I’d placed upon myself.

But you know what? The bit that happened after clicking the button was pretty straightforward and far from the nightmarish experience I thought it would be. We’re not really taught what to expect with the whole peer-review journal process. My misguided belief was that two academics would tear apart my article with glee abandon, laughing their way through my tenuous arguments and flimsy evidence. We’re led to believe that it’s an unknown, mysterious abyss from which a polished paper will magically appear. This is completely false. Contrary to my unfounded, initial expectations, both the editorial and peer-review process were incredibly helpful. The editors were extremely approachable and flexible. The comments received from both reviewers were considered and aimed to strengthen the piece rather than denigrate it. Imagine my pleasure when one of the reviewers even suggested that my manuscript should be published in its current form. That felt like a win in its own right, but, perhaps more importantly, it was a vindication that my work was sufficiently original and interesting.

This is what winning feels like.... imgur.com

Ultimately, my article was accepted with minor revisions. All in all, it wasn’t the nightmarish process I’d psyched myself up for. As theAdmin has mentioned countless times, this is a process run by fellow academics that have probably felt just as nervous, have had writer’s block, and have worried about clicking that ‘Submit Manuscript’ button just like you.

This is the bit where I try and distill some insightful words of wisdom to help you with the writing process. Firstly, don’t be afraid of using your support network… even if it’s just chatting about ideas over a coffee. Second, remember that the peer reviewers are there to help strengthen your work. They’re not evil ogres. They’ve more than likely been in exactly the same position. Third, without wanting to sound all Disney, believe in your own ability and don’t be scared of writer’s block. It happens to all of us.

I hope this has been useful. Also, make sure you keep reading theAdmin's blog! There's got to be some good stuff coming at some point, right?

-theECR

Why does Peer Review take so long? (Part II)

Continued from last week's post...

I’ve had some pretty good feedback from the last post, which leads me to want to continue it this week. The more I read other blogs and pieces on peer review, the more I realise that my interpretation of “taking a long time” and that of an author (especially one who is relatively new to publishing) are probably not the same thing. Why? Well, I’m increasingly convinced that there’s not much information out there about the nuts and bolts, as well as the nooks and crannies, of the reviewing process and the things that clog the gears. 

I would say, from my experience in the humanities and social sciences that you shouldn't start getting antsy until the 4-6 month point. And then rather than sending a demanding email, just send a polite email to the contact person (this should  be mentioned in the confirmation of submission email) and ask what the status is. Expect a vague answer. If it's taken this long, at least it means it's probably gone out for review - and that in itself is a victory.

So, again, here are some more reasons why it’s taking so long…

1.) Reviewers are Declining.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Reviewing is a voluntary exercise; the system relies on the good will of academics. That being said, there are times when we have the unfortunate circumstance of having multiple “declines” for a single paper. I’ve seen double digit invitations go out before someone agrees. Does this mean your paper is inherently bad? Probably not. It probably just means that it’s either a busy time of year for academia as a whole or a busy time for your subject. For example, if you are a researcher in linguistics and you submit a paper two weeks before the International Linguistics Conference, then we are likely to get multiple declines as the subject specialists are preparing for the conference. Another issue could be that your abstract and title do a poor job in explaining your paper. Reviewers tend to have to decide whether to review on only a few things:

1.)    The letter/email from the editor

2.)    The reputation of the journal

3.)    The title of the paper

4.)    The abstract of the paper

5.)    The expected turnaround time

You have control of only two of these items, so make them count. Make sure your abstract and title truly reflect the content of your paper and are written well. You need to sell your paper and its significance. We can’t rewrite your abstract to make it more attractive to reviewers; you need to make it concise and full of impact. (I see a post on abstracts and titles in the near future). 

2.)  A Reviewer has Backed Out.

This, for me, is one of the more frustrating things about managing the review process. A reviewer agrees and is given X amount of time (let’s say four weeks) to complete the review. In week 3 (or 4 or 5), the reviewer emails and says that due to workload or time commitments, s/he can no longer complete the review. This means that we have to start again trying to find another reviewer and give that person the same four weeks once s/he has accepted. 

3.) A Reviewer has Asked for an Extension

This one isn’t so frustrating for us. This means that the reviewer knows that the review won’t be completed in the four weeks we gave, but instead of leaving us hanging, s/he has contacted us and asked for an extension on the due date. We update the system. New due date is issued. We may have to do this again – remember in my last post when I mentioned it pays for us to be flexible? This is where that comes in. It’s preferable to know it’s coming, is in the reviewer’s mind, but will be a bit late than to have to start again.

4.) A Reviewer has Left Us Hanging

This is quite possibly the most frustrating reason. In this scenario, a reviewer has accepted, but we never hear from her/him again. This happens quite a bit in book reviewing (another post for another day), but it also happens in manuscript reviewing. If we follow up repeatedly but get no response, we’ll start looking for another reviewer. But then we’ve just wasted the four weeks that we don’t suspect anything is amiss, then the follow-up time, and then we’re back to square one finding a replacement. 

5.) Another Review is Needed

Sometimes, when reviews are returned, they do not agree.  It’s the editor’s job to analyse the two reviews and make the final decision; but it’s not unusual to have one reviewer recommend minor revisions and another recommend rejection.  Unless the paper happens to be in the editor’s specific research area, then it will most likely be sent for another review. Add four more weeks and the risk of all of the above.

 

6.) There’s Something about Your Paper that Needed Amending/Fixing 

Generally, papers come in, and they adhere to our requirements and guidelines (yet another future post and one of my biggest pet peeves). However, there are occasions when something comes in, and I’ve had to do a bit of amending. Whilst this is never to the paper itself, it could be to file formatting or removing identifying details. For example, if you have dutifully taken your name off and taken out your self-citations but left a footnote or an acknowledgement thanking your department and funder, these will need to be checked. Also, it may turn out that when a reviewer finally gets to your paper on week 3, he/she can't access the file for whatever reason. These are normally fixed pretty quickly, but it still adds time.

7.) There is a problem. 

This doesn’t happen very often. By a problem, I mean that a reviewer suspects plagiarism or another ethical issue with the paper and has queried it with the editor. The editor must then investigate, possibly speak to the publisher, and correspond with the reviewer. The author will most likely be told that the paper is under review throughout the duration of these conversations, as papers stay in “Under Review” until a decision is made. 

 

SIDENOTE: Here's a plea for anyone and everyone who peer reviews – want to be a better citizen of the peer reviewing world? Then please, please, please communicate with the administrator or editor.

There are more reasons, which I'll continue to add as future posts, but I'm a bit preoccupied today as a close friend had a baby girl yesterday (hurrah!) and I was able to find a Mr Noisy onesie for my nephew who will be born in April (hurrah!).

As always, Tweet to @ECRPublishing , email, or leave a comment with any questions or ideas for future posts. I've gotten some great ones so far!

-theAdmin

  Tweet