A Guide to the Scientific Career. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
academic manners in the writing process cannot hurt and if anything, especially for a prolific writer, will help. A prolific writer will become known by both the quality of their work and the attitude/style by which they submit their work and respond to the review process or other academic publishing questions. On the flip side, an unmannered writer who ignores common courtesies or comes across as rude and inflammatory will become known for such traits and, eventually, may become labeled a difficult author. This doesn't mean that this type of author may never be able to publish, but most academic specialties and their associated journals are small, and such author characteristics will soon become well known. Officially, this will not be a roadblock to publishing for such an author, but being human, unofficially, this will have ramifications for the author − and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, negatively perceived academic authors will have a tougher time publishing, at least with those who know of them from past experiences or through others.
10.2.4 Thanking the Editor and Reviewers
I begin every cover letter with a short thank‐you to the editor for considering my paper. This should not be a long or overly sugar‐coated. This is not intended to bribe or convince the editor to take a special look at your paper. It is, however, a simple academic manner that acknowledges that the editor is taking the time and resources to have your paper reviewed. Also, when a paper is returned to you after peer‐review, do not hesitate to briefly thank the reviewers for their time in reading and critiquing your paper. Even if the reviewer never sees this acknowledgment, the editor does and may appreciate that you are taking the time (or a least thinking about) the process that has been undertaken to evaluate your submission. As an editor, I can say that I always appreciate seeing such comments from the authors. As a writer, I make this a reflexive part of every submission, not as a token but as a sincere thanks to those who have taken time out of their day for the academic peer‐review process. Most editors and certainly most reviewers do not receive any compensation for their time in evaluating academic submissions. Therefore, often the only acknowledgment of their contribution is a simple thanks from the authors!
10.2.5 Do Not Take Reviewer Comments Personally
I have all too often seen authors who, after reading suggestions/comments from reviewers about their paper, take the reviews to heart, i.e. personally. Some will develop a “conspiracy theory” response, which is very unhealthy and will potentially taint future submissions. Such a response can lead to nothing good. Reviewers are human and are often your peers. Sure, some reviewers can be quite forward and abrasive in their reviews, and some will be down right prickly. However, it is the job of the editor to take all reviews into consideration and mesh all reviewer comments into a single overall “review.” If there are outliers in the process, the editor must appreciate these and use them sparingly in their final decision. With this said, the author should take nothing the reviewers say personally, even if it feels very personal. Most of the time, this is not the case and especially, when the peer review process is blinded. On rare occasions, and especially in smaller journals with a niche‐type readership, the reviewer may “figure out” who the author is (if it is a blinded review), and in such cases, personal biases may come into play. However, this is usually not the case, and pointed or overly critical comments may just be the way a particular reviewer will critique your paper.
In the end, a negative response from the author may result in a reviewer taking it personally and being overly critical with their recommendation. Moreover, as an editor, author responses that come across as arrogant or hostile are interpreted as being unprofessional, even if they are founded on truth.
10.2.6 Try to Accommodate the Reviewer's Suggestions
I have often seen authors respond to a reviewer's comments in a negative way. This not only comes across as disrespectful but rude when read by the editor who, remember, is usually the one who makes the final decision on your paper. The reviewer may or may not see your response to their comments, depending or whether your revision is sent back out for re‐review. I always try to respond to each comment from the reviewer as positively as possible. Now, comments like “This is the worst paper I have ever seen…” will be difficult to respond to in a positive way. In these situations, it is best to say less versus more. In these cases, let the editor be the judge of the reviewer's comments. Comments to the authors that are negative should be responded to briefly and honestly. If changing something in your paper based on the reviewer's comment will not take away from the essence of the study, then do it. If you cannot accommodate a reviewer's suggestion, then respond reasonably and without any negativity or sense that you are taking the response personally. A short and well‐thought‐out response is the best way to respond to a reviewer's comment that you might not agree with. Remember, if you can't say it nicely, then don't say it at all.
10.2.7 Respect to Editorial Staff
The editorial staff for a journal are the “movers and shakers” for moving papers through the review process. They not only verify basic things such as if your paper is formatted correctly but also check that all forms and other documents are in the correct order. You should regard the editorial staff of a journal as you would the administrative assistant to a CEO of a company that you would like to work for. Being polite and considerate of these staff goes a long way for the writer of an academic paper. Responding to their emails promptly and courteously is good form. The point of being kind to editorial staff is not necessarily that they will remember your future submissions but that they will NOT remember you in the future as a inconsiderate author!
One of the worst things an academic writer can do is to harass the editorial staff or worse, the editor who is handling their paper. Calling or emailing to check on the status of your submission on a frequent basis will not help you and could potentially hurt the process. You can imagine that an editorial staff member who is pestered by you could easily put your paper “at the end of the list.” Most journals will give you a rough idea of the review process time and it is appropriate to check on the status of your paper if this time comes and goes. However, checking on the status prematurely is considered rude by most academic journals.
10.2.8 Respect Your Co‐Authors
Courteousness to your co‐authors not only ensures that they will want to work with you in the future but that they will also respect you more as an academic writer. The primary author of an academic paper should respect their co‐authors and make sure that they are included in all decisions and correspondence for a paper. Allow your co‐authors to see all responses to a reviewer response letter.
10.2.9 Respect to the Publisher
It is important to respond to publisher queries in a timely manner. This not only facilitates the speed at which your paper will be handled and eventually published, but it also keeps your name off of any “black list” that the publisher may have, mentally or physically. Unless your publication is seriously delayed, it is not a good idea to bother the publisher with “when will my work be published” questions. Not being listed as a tardy or difficult author may help those who wish to publish with the publisher in the future with, for example, a book.
10.2.10 Respect Authors Who Contribute
If you are editing an issue of a journal or book or simply writing a paper where authors are invited to contribute, it is important to maintain good communication. A simple “thank you” goes a long way and should not be used too sparingly. Remember, most invited authors will receive nothing in return for their contributions and give of their time for no other purpose than to support academia.
10.2.11 Academic Manners as a Reviewer
Whether you are reviewing for a journal or book proposal, there are some loose guidelines that, although not “rules,” can make your efforts more useful to the authors and publisher that you are working for.
As a reviewer, you hold a unique position that carries with it