Category Archives: peer review

style, tone and grammar – native speaker bias in peer reviews

Posted on October 12, 2020 by

This is a guest post from Dr Randi Stebbins. Randi is Director of the University of Iceland Centre for Writing. Peer review is a central part of academic publication. The process of back and forth between authors and reviewers is … Continue reading →

Posted in English language, grammar, journal article, peer review, reviewing, style | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

dealing with rejection

Posted on August 31, 2020 by

This is a guest post from Dan Cleather. Dan is a strength coach, educator, scientist and anarchist. His latest book, “Subvert! A philosophical guide for the 21st century scientist”, was published in May. Being an academic requires a thick skin. Very … Continue reading →

Posted in academic writing, peer review, rejection, research funding | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

peer reviewing your first paper

Posted on October 14, 2019 by

Patter now has over 800 posts. It’s pretty hard to find things on here, even when you know what you’re looking for. Some of the elderly posts are, I hope, still useful. I’ve decided to start an occasional ‘best of’ … Continue reading →

Posted in academic writing, feedback, journal article, peer review, refereeing, reviewing, reviews | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

revise and resubmit

Posted on March 25, 2019 by

Yep. Those dreaded words when you get the email back from the journal. R and R. Anything but Rest and Relaxation. Groan. In essence, the message says We have considered your paper and we have decided that – well it’s … Continue reading →

Posted in academic writing, journal article, reviewer speak, revise and resubmit, revision | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

professors of the poison pen

Posted on October 30, 2017 by

Paul Stein’s 1939 film, The Poison Pen, is set in a small English village whose residents receive anonymous letters alleging sexual and moral misbehaviour. The recipients become increasingly angry and bent on revenge. A formerly quiet and placid place becomes … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, poison pen, Professor | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

when peer review is scent marking

Posted on June 19, 2017 by

Continuing random posts on peer reviewer behaviour… So we all know what scent marking is. It’s when animals set out the boundaries of their territory by leaving their scent in strategic places. Scentmarked territories are often used for sleeping and/or mating … Continue reading →

Posted in disciplines, journal article, peer review, subfield, territoriality, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

self-citation by proxy

Posted on May 15, 2017 by

Meet Dr Oozing-Confidence. He knows his work is important. Very important. Superior even. He gets very miffed when he reads anything that is on his topic, or connected with it, that doesn’t recognise his contributions and their significance. He is always keen … Continue reading →

Posted in conversation, journal article, peer review, self-citation | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

what does a book proposal reviewer do?

Posted on January 26, 2017 by

A post for academic book week. When you send in a book proposal to a publisher, chances are that it will be sent out to reviewers. This is peer review – and a version that actually gets talked about very little. … Continue reading →

Posted in book proposal, peer review, reviews, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

what did that peer reviewer actually mean?

Posted on January 12, 2017 by

We all know that real estate agents write in code. Renovation potential means it’s a dump. First home buyer’s dream means it’s a dump. Original condition means it’s a dump. Now, journal reviewers have codes too. You may find that … Continue reading →

Posted in peer review, reviewer speak, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

the appraisal and rejection of conference abstracts

Posted on September 12, 2013 by

I had an email recently from an early career researcher who’d just had an abstract for a conference knocked back. When they asked for feedback, they were shocked by what they read. Presumably assuming that the writer would never see … Continue reading →

Posted in abstracts, conference papers, early career researchers, peer review, rejection, reviewing | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments