Thursday, 21 May 2009

Peer review

I received the reviewer comments on my journal submission two weeks ago. In an attempt to remain motivated in my other work, I printed it, then ignored it . Now the time has come.

The first reviewer is quite gentle, almost kind. Most of his comments are valid without being destructive, some can even be deflected. I imagine him as a student, working hard, knowledgeable, but also timid. Or gentle, hoping to accumulate good karma. The second man (although there are no names, I know this is a man) has a different angle that he goes on about. Again, quite valid, a bit more forceful compared to the precious one, but his repeated insistence on citing papers from a specific group of authors, makes me think he's mostly harmless. And probably in that author list. The third reviewer feels stronger, however. This and that and that and that need changing. And that. And that. And so forth. I see him as a man with a roundish face with a slightly bulbous nose; reddish, uneven skin; wild hair, speckled with gray and a matching uncontrolled beard. Specks of spit flies when he speaks. And I suspect he's right too...

Now I need to combine their sometimes contrasting views. Without taking it personally. Because it's not, this is merely the academic system.

No comments: