Point out that `` terrible check '' in dissertation is hindering scientific development



Some journals have a peer-review system, in which other scientists check the papers they plan to publish. It is often said that peer reviewers are responsible for maintaining the quality and accuracy of articles published in the world, but `` some reviewers write very bad peer review comments. '' Pointed out science writer Christie Wilcox, who wrote the article for Science in Science.

Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful, study finds | Science | AAAS

Biologists Nissa Sibirger and Amber Stavler in a paper in PeerJ , a peer-reviewed scientific journal, commented, `` 'Problematic peer review' hurt the productivity and career of scientists working in STEM. Yes. ' Sybirger and colleagues conducted an anonymous questionnaire on 1106 scientists active in 14 fields, asking them for their peer review. As a result, 642 people, or 58% of the total, answered that they had been peer-reviewed by outside Chinese scientists. In addition, more than half of those who have undergone such peer review have replied, 'I have received problematic peer review comments multiple times.'

She also points out that problematic peer review comments often end up in personal attacks and lack constructive content. For example, one scientist who cooperated with a questionnaire sent a message from a reviewer saying, `` I had a hard time not using the words ' lipstick on pigs ' or ' fucking bullshit ' when writing review comments. It has been sent. Another scientist has received a message saying, 'I didn't look through because my last name seemed to be Spanish-speaking and I found it to be written in poor English.' I answered.

Of the scientists who received problematic peer review comments, many of the white male scientists said they were 'less affected.' On the other hand, women, X-gender and colored scientists were more likely to report that `` non-professional peer review has fueled feelings of self-doubt and impaired scientific productivity. '' thing. Many colored scientists also felt that problematic peer review was slowing their career progression. 'The scientists of all nationalities, of all genders and ethnicities, received uniformly problematic peer review comments, but the consequences were not uniform,' Sybirger said.

Trust 'Tru' Katsande

`` Basically, women and people of color have a stereotype that lack intelligence and scientific thinking, '' said a psychologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, psychologist Dennis Sekapuaptewa, who wrote an email on ScienceInsider. Due to exposure, receiving peer-reviewed comments that augment stereotypes can be psychologically painful, no matter how inaccurate, resulting in self-suspicion, poor performance, It could have a negative effect on the rise. '

There are various opinions on these peer-review issues. Linda Beaumont, a climatologist at Macquarie University in Australia, argued that the problematic peer review should be a 'different form of bullying' and that peer review comments be published. Others have suggested that peer reviewers should disclose their information, rather than peer review comments, so that the review is not anonymous. 'Identifying the reviewer could lead to criminal dissatisfaction with senior scientists, which could lead to reprisals,' said Adriana Romero Olivares, a microbiological ecologist at the University of New Hampshire. Romero Olivares suggests that instead of opening up peer reviewers, a double-blind approach to peer review could be introduced. If the authors and reviewers do not know each other and conduct the review in a double-blind manner, the peer review will not be affected by the attributes of the authors of the paper and the reviewers will not be retaliated.

'While there is a joke called Reviewer 2 that radically perverts the dissertation, the serious negative consequences of poor reviewers are not a joke,' said Wilcox.

in Science, Posted by log1l_ks