lswcap
In some journals, there is a system called peer review in which other scientists check and review papers to be published. It is said that the quality and accuracy of a manuscript is often driven by the reviewer’s review, but scientific author Christy Wilcox also points out that among reviewers they write malicious review comments.
Biologists Nyssa J. Silbiger and Amber Stubler use a paper published in a scientific journal (PeerJ) to screen a problem that harms the productivity and career of scientists in the field of STEM. Announcing that there is work. They conducted an anonymous survey of 1,106 scientists working in 14 different fields and asked about peer reviews they had received in the past. As a result, 642 people, 58% of the total, said they had been screened by non-Korean scientists. In addition, more than half of those who received such a review said that they had received a review opinion with a problem on several occasions.
The research team points out that problematic review comments are often consistent with personal attacks and lack of constructive content. For example, a scientist who collaborated with a survey sent a message to the reviewers stating that they had struggled to avoid using a pig-neck pearl necklace or the word damn useless when writing comments. Another scientist reportedly received a message saying that he couldn’t believe it because he saw the author’s surname and knew that he was thought to be Spanish and written in awkward English.
Most of the scientists who received questionable opinions, white male scientists, said they had little effect. On the other hand, women and scientists of color responded that they were more likely to incite self-doubt and reduce scientific productivity through unprofessional screening. Also, most of the scientists of color felt that problematic reviewers were slowing their career advancement. The research team says that although scientists of all nationalities and genders of all nationalities are consistently receiving questionable opinions, the impact is not uniform.
One psychologist said that women and people of color are basically exposed to the stereotype that women and people of color lack intelligence and scientific thinking. Point out that there is a possibility of affecting the decline and delay in career advancement.
There are various opinions on these screening issues. One scientist argues that problematic screening is another form of bullying, and that screening opinions should be disclosed. There are also opinions that the reviewer information should not be disclosed to anonymize the review because it is not a review comment. Of course, on the contrary, there are concerns that revealing your identity could lead to dissatisfaction with criticism and retaliate. Rather than disclosing the reviewers, a suggestion is made on how to introduce a double blind test for screening. If the review is conducted in this way that neither the authors of the manuscript nor the reviewers know each other, the review can be influenced by the characteristics of the manuscript author and avoid retaliation. Related information can be found here.
Add comment