Re: [xmca] Mentoring in research/writing Surprising Result So far

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 24 May 2011 09:22, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jay:
>
> Thanks for your kind comments, and above all thanks for the (very
> constructive) links. Yes, I know; being constructive takes a lot of time,
> and being reconstructive with language (as one must, sometimes!) takes even
> longer. But even for the busiest and most impatient reviewers, I still think
> there is a case for civility.
>
> This morning I got a long awaited review from MCA. The reviewer introduces
> himself (for I think we may be absolutely certain that we are dealing with a
> bloke) as a regular contributor to xmca from way back (from the days of
> xlchc, actually).
>
> There then follows a long justification of the recommendation "do not
> revise and do not resubmit". In conclusion, I get this:
>
> "As the orchestrator of these comments, I should state that the tone of
> this review indicates the considerable annoyance that we as a group
> experienced regarding the author’s glib and flippant approach to serious
> scholarship. The tone of this review represents a response to the author’s
> own effort at positioning himself as wittily ingenious without doing the
> sort of serious scholarship that would lead readers to arrive at the same
> conclusion."
>
> Now, how did the reviewer KNOW that I am wittily ingenious? Sorry, I mean,
> how did the reviewer know all about my glib and flippant approach to serious
> scholarship? I suppose that was the purpose of the long preamble: to let me
> know that this is not exactly a blind review.
>
> Well, then--why do I only get ONE reviewer now? I used to get three, and
> usually at least one was reasonably blind. And civil.
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>

This demonstrates the earlier point that providing good reviews is a
protracted undertaking.  Good feedback is invaluable and a demanding
activity, so it may be asking too much to expect this kind of quality from
every review.  The onus then falls on the editor to edit and demarcate the
meaning of "review" used ("book/author impressions"?), lest the poor quality
of the "review" be deemed representative of the journal.

Huw
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca