Academic Journal Reviewer: Don't let anonymous reviewers of manuscripts become a fig leaf!

Zhao Liang once said to Shang Martin, "The promise of a thousand people is not as good as the advice of a soldier" ("History of Shang Jun lie biography"). For a manuscript, the same is for or against, different reviewers, at least for me, the weight can be very different; but in the face of the procedure, "one person" and "one soldier" among a thousand people are equal in value, and thus they become equal. Therefore, the sound of "rumors" is likely to be drowned in many "nono" sounds.

Under the expert review system, the subjectivity of academic journals is adhered to

It is a pleasure to have a dedicated opportunity for discussion on the issue of expert review, which is indeed time to be explored. Anonymous expert review is an external rule, and since 1999, I myself have written many times calling for academic journals to implement such a review system; but after the anonymous expert review system has been widely implemented in various journals, I deeply feel that our academic journals and scholars are not very suitable for this system.

As a potential reviewer, I start by making "self-criticism" – we may also need to learn how to review as "experts". In the comments of the cross-strait reviewers that I have had the pleasure of reading, I have seen from time to time that criticism of the paper under review has not been discussed on certain parts (as the reviewer deems necessary).

Many require a paper that explores specific issues to make a more "systematic and comprehensive" statement, and sometimes also require a long-term comprehensive discussion of the historical background of the topic of the paper that has not been agreed upon by the academic community. Confucius once said, "A gentleman does not sick according to his ability, and he does not shame others by what he cannot do" (Records of Etiquette and Tables). Those of us who may be tasked with review, or should take this reminder.

However, this time I am more for the journal, I hope that everyone will work together to improve the academic quality of the journal. My basic view is that the purpose of expert review is to help journals process incoming manuscripts, not to represent a "correct" academic process to control or even replace the journal in deciding whether to use manuscripts.

There is now a popular saying, "development is the last word". The purpose of running a journal is to carry forward the knowledge, not just to keep it. Most importantly, the quality of an article can almost determine the life of an academic journal. In other fields, few people are willing to delegate such a life-and-death matter to others. Now, because of the emphasis on so-called "procedural justice", full respect for the censorship opinion is actually equivalent to the publication ceding the right to decide on the use of the manuscript to the censor.

In particular, our "academic situation" is different from that of foreign countries, which usually have only one or two scholars as editors, and many things have to be faked by others; but their editors-in-chief sometimes take responsibility for themselves within the scope of their academic ability, and do not all rely on external censorship. And our publications, especially specialized academic journals, often have a professional editorial team, and many of these people have a not low education, so at least within the scope of their academic ability, they do not have to be subject to the opinions of foreign experts.

In an era when the world style is in trouble, it is necessary to be vigilant against corruption, including academics, and indeed the prevention of "academic corruption" should be implemented in the procedures. However, we must not forget the purpose of learning and the needs of academic development, and we must not let the consideration of fraud overwhelm the construction of scholarship. No matter what kind of academic review, it is not appropriate to adhere to the procedure, but it neglects the purpose of learning itself.

I think that publications must pay attention to their own subjectivity, let experts review manuscripts for my use, rather than being kidnapped by the procedure, so that some breakthrough good manuscripts are killed by rigid "rules", but accept some manuscripts that seem to be all-encompassing but do not advance much.

Today, most of the reviewers of various academic journals are people with some achievements and qualifications. These people may be more inclined to maintain existing formats and are less receptive to new ideas (or even different styles of speech). Therefore, breakthrough research often makes those who maintain existing ideas feel uncomfortable (similar cases in Chinese and foreign academic circles are not uncommon, and even Einstein has an unrecognized experience). This is an inherent dilemma for academic review, and often the more "normative" the emphasis is placed, the more difficult it is to tolerate and accept challenging research.

Many of the editors I have come into contact with say that there are not many good manuscripts now. It is not excluded that some good manuscripts with breakthroughs are killed by Shoucheng's external review. How to ensure that excellent manuscripts with breakthroughs are not stifled by external review "experts" whose vision has been solidified is probably a major problem for publishers.

On the other hand, those articles that are stable and stable are often the easiest to pass the review. I've heard many editors complain about the "low level of repetition" of academic papers, and those papers with poor quality that have been published are "externally reviewed." Academic research is a process of development, and the last thing that is needed is a "standardized" fixed product.

In an era of innovation, how to reject mediocrity is another major challenge for academic journals. The better the publication, the more attention needs to be paid to this. Because this not only involves the reputation of the journal, but also directly affects the academic development direction of those who have not entered the Tao or are new to the Tao - the articles in good journals are a model for young people to learn. If they take mediocrity as their quaintness, there is little hope for our learning.

A manuscript that usually gives rise to controversial views means a breakthrough. A colleague once quoted the editor of a foreign academic journal as saying that they were not very excited to receive two review opinions that agreed to use them; on the contrary, when they received two opposing review opinions, it may mean that the manuscript touched on sensitive cutting-edge issues and would often be used preferentially after consideration.

Sociologist rhetoric

The wisdom of Zeng Shiqiang's I Ching

Bo Yu Han Hong

Biography of Liang Qichao

29.90

Although there are some differences in Chinese and foreign "academic conditions", such constructive practices can still be used as a reference for our publications. Regardless of the mode of review, when providing as much space as possible for breakthrough manuscripts and scholars to publish and develop, it is particularly necessary to encourage rather than discourage latecomers to create new theories (to follow a cliché, that is, to use manuscripts to favor young people).

In fact, it is not only the opposition between the use and the use of opinions that are noteworthy, but also the two review opinions that advocate the rejection of the manuscript, and if the reasons for the rejection are opposed, the editorial department may also wish to pay attention to it. The editor-in-chief of an important journal told me that there was an article in which both censorship opinions advocated rejection, but one said that it was too innovative and the other said that it was all clichés, and the two were obviously opposed. In my humble opinion, this is probably a breakthrough manuscript. In order to respect the procedure, the journal can only reject the manuscript. However, if further consideration is given, perhaps an article with a greater impact in the future will appear in this journal.

Especially today, academic concepts are diverse, and academic standards are also divergent. Even within the same professional scope, different people may have very different perceptions of specific issues. The similarity of one or two "experts" on a specific paper can determine the fate of a paper, but it does not necessarily accurately reflect the views of the "academic community", nor does it have to be the "correct" opinion. Zhao Liang once said to Shang Martin, "The promise of a thousand people is not as good as the advice of a soldier" ("History of Shang Jun lie biography"). For a manuscript, the same is for or against, different reviewers, at least for me, the weight can be very different; but in the face of the procedure, "one person" and "one soldier" among a thousand people are equal in value, and thus they become equal. Therefore, the sound of "rumors" is likely to be drowned in many "nono" sounds. I guess many editors actually have a scale in mind, but in the face of procedural rules, they temporarily put this scale on the shelf. However, after a long time, the scale may be farther and farther away from the editor, and eventually fade out of the editor's heart due to strangeness.

The ancient Chinese saying has long been said that "being born quiet" is nature, but "moving by feeling things" produces various reactions under external influences, forming "likes and dislikes". Since "the feelings of things are infinite, and the likes and dislikes of people are undisciplined", if "likes and dislikes are not knotted inside, knowing that they are tempted outside, and cannot be reversed", then "Heavenly Reason is extinguished" and eventually "things are humanized" (Li Ji Le Ji). In a society where production is mechanized by a focus on efficiency, the impact of things on people is even greater. So Marx has always been concerned with how capitalism makes people human, that is, worrying that people may become closer to machines.

If our editors cede the responsibility for using the manuscript to the reviewers, and only "sit" to the conclusions of the review and appraisal, then the independent editor "person" who has a scale in his heart may also be materialized as a mechanical editor "person" who has no scale in his heart.

In fact, experts can also make mistakes, so we don't have to be overly superstitious about the opinions of anonymous experts. I hope that our editors, especially the editors-in-chief, will have enough confidence and commitment. Within the scope of academic ability, when encountering articles that you feel good about (or have a trustworthy scholar recommending), it seems that you do not have to respect the opinions of the external audit, or even do not send them to the outside world. Whether a paper itself stands or not can be known in a rough time. Editors with professional ability who are confident that they can face the test of time do not have to worry about whether they are "academically correct" in their procedures. Otherwise, even if the norms are observed everywhere, it is only "correct procedures".

The editor-in-chief of an important journal said privately that the most important thing now is the cultivation of a sense of academic community. Academia is the public instrument of the world, and this public instrument should be maintained by everyone, including authors, editors and reviewers. And in maintaining the community, we must never forget the learning itself.

Different people may have different divisions of labor, but everyone has their own responsibilities. Some people will say that they are just the "second setter" who passes in a variety of tasks, but in fact, the second setter of volleyball is not only the passer of the ball, but also the organizer of the overall team. Editors of academic journals, in the academic community or are playing the role of organizers, have an important responsibility for academic development. If this community becomes a community where everyone competes to blame and promote irresponsibility, it will not be a good thing.

We must not forget the subjectivity of academic journals, so that scholarship becomes a ritual and performance controlled by the program - everyone insists on the justice of the program, but forgets the purpose of setting the program. Scholarship cannot be without rules, but it is advisable to neglect without omission. If the procedural "literary net" is too dense, it may endanger the academic ecology and appear that the water is clear and there is no fish. Although it looks translucent, it does not support the growth of academic life.

Of course, no rule can have a hundred benefits without any disadvantages. Although the implementation of the anonymous expert review system has suffered such drawbacks, I do not advocate the non-implementation of this system. I am afraid that authors, editors and reviewers need to continue to work the one hand, fully aware of the limitations of the expert review system itself, but also learn to swim in swimming, so that this rule is gradually improved in practice.

My expectation for a first-class academic journal is to try to get as many great papers as possible to appear in my own journal, rather than let the gold shine elsewhere.

Source: Social Science Society

End

Author | Luo Zhitian

Source | Social Sciences

Edit | Jessica