Re: Regression towards the mean—a plea for civility in peer review

Dear Editor,

Peer reviewers seem to be at the receiving end, though not for wrongful reasons. The tripod of journal editors, peer reviewers and contributing researchers stands steady and firm with all the three realising their roles and expectations.

Journal editors tend to be experienced, seasoned in the entire process, mostly having been researchers and peer reviewers themselves, thus developing the knack of identifying the peer reviewers precisely however specialised the topic. Further, an appropriate note accompanying the reviewers remarks / comments, realistic and encouraging, as necessary, helps dilute the negative (and ‘harsh’ tone) that may be hurtful and demoralising.

For the peer reviewer, not accepting too many is a rule best followed. Conveying the merit and the odd part commented upon with clarity and fluency is not difficult; brevity does amount to rejection with little possibility of resubmission / reconsideration, but the tone should need not be abrupt and dismissive.

Finally for the researcher, adequate tips and guidelines are available for usage and compliance. A negative and coarse review does reflect upon the quality of guidance of the supporting senior faculty/ guide.

Research does demand patience, stamina and ability to withstand adversity, and breaking down / abandoning with one negative comment / rejection may amount to immaturity, not desirable for the long run and elevated tenure / status aspired for.

Rewarded peer reviewer is a practice worthy of serious consideration for the responsibility to be considered as acknowledged and compensated.

Prof Murar E Yeolekar, Mumbai.