As academics, the best way we can combat ignorance and help the environment is to train and support good scientists.
We need to build up our peers, not put them down. We’re facing a global environmental crisis. Emissions are accelerating again, the climate is rapidly warming, we’re losing the world’s biodiversity, people have nothing to eat because the environment is too degraded.
We need good committed scientists who stay the course for careers in all areas of environmental science.
Peer-reviews are often at odds with that goal. Many reviews are written to put people down, rather than build them up.
I was recently forwarded reviews on a paper a student is leading. The paper was rejected, which is fine. Its a normal part of the publication process and the production of valid science.
However, I felt so frustrated about one of these reviws. It was so mean and nit-picked every last detail in the paper.
That’s not helping us to create the next generation of committed scientists. Its slowing them down, and probably pushing some away.
The people writing these reviews don’t know how privileged they are.
If you go talk to people working with conservation on the ground you will realize this.
Conservationists are facing urgent issues, with communicating the importance of ecosystems to government and the public. Urgent issues that need some science advice now, not perfect science in 10 years.
So sitting around pulling apart every last detail in a paper you’ve been sent to review is a privilege.
What should you do?
Ask yourself: is this science good enough? By good enough I mean are the conclusions scientific?
The study might not be done the way you would do it, frame the introduction how you think it should be done, or cite the references you would want to cite. But you need to weigh the effort required to make those changes against what the world needs us to be spending our time on.
If you nit-pick every last detail then the you’re burning the time of the scientists that now have to respond on all those details.
That’s time they could be spending on working with policy-makers on solutions, educating the public, or training new scientists.
Activities that actually help the issues the world faces.
If its a student who gets this review you’re doing an even greater disservice. Not only are you wasting time, but you might be killing their confidence. That’s going to slow them down 10 times over.
So yes we should peer-review. Yes we should absolutely reject papers if the science isn’t valid. But don’t go overboard on your reviews. If you’re going to reject a paper, just bring up the main 1 or 2 flaws.
That’s enough to reject it if it needs rejecting.
And be nice.
PS
If you want to go one better, you can offer encouragement. Even if you ultimately recommend rejecting the paper. Here’s how
PPS If the quality of the science in a paper makes you really mad then you should try even harder to write an encouraging review. Its good for your soul.
Designed by Chris Brown. Source on Github