|
|
MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING
Posted May 8, 2002
| SUMMARYWriters for academic journals, especially those young in their careers, deserve tough but kind, demanding but constructive, and timely reviews of their manuscripts. Fred Blevens draws on interviews with two journal editors and also his own experience to offer his tips for reviewers to do a good job. Among them: Demand a good literature review. |
By Fred Blevens
Southwest Texas State University
A few months, a colleague at a distant university was expressing symptoms of depression over reviewer comments on a manuscript he had submitted to a journal. One of the three readers had demanded an overhaul of the work, suggesting a completely different study -- one the author found ludicrous and of no interest personally or professionally. The comments accompanying the review were brief, arrogant and less-than-instructive on how exactly the author should proceed. For this, the author-- an assistant professor trying to build a portfolio for tenure-- had to wait nearly six months, primarily because the reviewer in question was two months late in returning the review.
Two journal editors agree that the reviewer violated nearly every rule imaginable for those charged with keeping the gate that keeps scholarship sound. "Don't try to make a paper or manuscript into something that it is not," says Pat Washburn, editor of Journalism History and first vice president of the American Journalism Historians Association. "In other words, sometimes a reviewer will not judge a paper or manuscript on what is presented but instead will try to make it into something else entirely. While suggesting some changes is all right, suggesting an entirely different paper is not necessarily helpful."
American Journalism Editor Karla Gower says such occasions, while infrequent, are quite frustrating. "Every once in a while, I get someone who says the manuscript needs major revisions and then gives the author one sentence of feedback," Gower says. "It's really a useless review. Give the author some kind of constructive feedback."
Washburn and Gower suggest that reviewers leave the tower, plant themselves on firm ground, read the work thoroughly (not just a casual skim), and offer suggestions (more than a sentence or two) that the author actually can use to improve the work.
,br />
"If someone spends the time doing a paper or manuscript, they deserve the courtesy of having it well read," Washburn says. "If the roles were reversed and a reviewer sent in a paper, I think he or she would like to have the same courtesy." In addition," he says, "be tactful and helpful in the comments. While it may be difficult to be tactful if someone can't spell well, most other things can be suggested without being venomous or appearing arrogant because you're a research expert.
"Gower says another source of irritation occurs when a reviewer rejects because they believe the piece is a bad fit for the journal's audience "but doesn't explain why and doesn't offer any suggestions for where the piece might be a better fit." "Authors have a hard time accepting that their topic isn't a fit when they've chosen the journal because they do think it's a fit," Gower says.
|
|
| Top 10 Tips on Reviewing Manuscripts
1. Beat your deadline, at least occasionally.
2. Be tough, but kind. There's no room for arrogance here.
3. Be demanding, but constructive. Every work is inprogress.
4. Critique what's written, not what you would have written.
5. Know when to say no to an editor, even the nice ones.
6. Read it thoroughly. That means to the end at least twice.
7. Demand a good literature review, a proof that the work is new.
8. Donıt judge the journalıs audience. Thatıs the editorıs job.
9. Read the journal. Every issue. Every article.
10. Learn something and pass it along. There's usually something cool for class. |
|
Even so, Washburn believes authors have responsibilities as well, particularly in following the rules of the journal or conference call. "If someone blatantly ignores the rules -- in other words, the page limit is 25 pages and someone sends something in that is 40 pages -- then I think the reviewer has the right to refuse to read a paper or manuscript," Washburn says. The (reviewers) should not have to put up with someone who expands their work load enormously because of ignorance or arrogance. I'm willing to read something as long as it's close to fitting the rules, but I'm not willing to read something that is so out of line that it is ludicrous."
He says it's also essential for authors to establish that their work clearly advances the literature. "Demand that an author show evidence that he or she did a literature review," Washburn says. "It doesn't necessarily have to be called that, particularly in a historical piece, but it is still necessary to demonstrate that this is breaking new ground rather than just covering what others have covered."
Washburn says reviewers should be tougher on manuscripts submitted for a journal because of their permanence and that fact that they generally carry more weight in the tenure and promotion review process.
And, he says, don't be bashful if you simply don't feel up to the task or "you are not sure you can do an adequate job." "Authors deserve a knowledgeable review, even if they have to wait a little longer to get it," he says.
Gower urges reviewers to pay attention to deadlines. "Do contact the editor if you can't do the review or you can't do it on time," Gower says. "Don't lose the manuscript under a pile of papers on your desk."
Both editors emphasized the seriousness of the work. "I think reviewers should remember that the quality of the journal really depends on them," Gower says. "If they don't take the job seriously and really take some time critiquing the manuscripts, then the quality of what gets published goes down."
This article first appeared as "Keeping Scholarship Strong: Top 10 Tips for Reviewing Manuscripts" in Clio Among the Media (Summer 2002), Pages 1, 6. Clio is a quarterly newslettter of the History Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
|
