7 ms·

As a scientist, I often have to deal with similar BS of a reviewer misunderstanding a submitted journal article, literally insisting we do something we already

• dekhn 4y ago
  Your solution for Reviewer 3 works, but often times, I just work with the editor to convince them the reviewer is confused.
  • zakki 4y ago
    Genuine question, which one is easier: - convince editor - write something that reviewer will understand
    • _yb2s 4y ago
      The editor reads the reviewer comments and replies also. In most cases replying to the reviewer like I suggest will allow the editor to realize it was the reviewers mistake, and they won't even bother sending it back to the reviewer... but if they do you've targeted both strategies with one response.
• andirk 4y ago
  This advice is relevant in many aspects of daily life too. I visualize it like tug-o-war. The more they disagree, the more they both back up + pull harder. But the more they "agree" (it's all in the delivery as @universehacker mentioned) the more they approach one another + relax their grip. Meet in the "middle"!
  • password4321 4y ago
    This was illustrated in a business communications course when the instructor asked someone to place their hand up against his high-five style. When the instructor began to push the other person pushed back immediately without being asked, in order to stay in the same place. It is human nature!
• bubblethink 4y ago
  >Take them seriously, stroke their egos, and take fully responsibility With academic reviews, I'm a bit split on this approach. It's context dependent, but sometimes being on the offence is a better strategy. You shouldn't be rude, but if you clearly demonstrate that the reviewer is wrong and their understanding is wrong, it can have the effect of disarming them and swaying the other reviewers in your favour. It's extremely likely that 1 out of 4-5 reviewers that you typically get will be someone who puts minimal effort and doesn't get the paper. So this is something that you need to do often.
• gerdesj 4y ago
  That is a decent approach to any "Gate Keeper" entity. The Gate Keeper might be anything from a budget holder to a government. "The Prince" by an Italian lad off of the 16thC is still a pertinent read 400 years later and he's riffing off old Romans, Greeks and before and that's just in Europe. I'm sure China and India, int al, have similar writings. Coercion and other trickery is hardly the invention of Renaissance Italy but a fair few expert practitioners were extent. Surprisingly enough, some people don't abide by some stated rules and need careful handling. Bonus points are awarded when you make your eventual goal the idea of your "adversary". This is all a massive game of "us - decent types" vs "you - unpleasant types" and hence a form of tribalism. As soon as you find yourself using a term like "As a ..." or even "We ..." why not look a little deeper and see if you can't find some common ground or defuse the situation somehow. Perhaps a chat over the blower instead of the usual email trail as a precursor to hostilities might help. I don't know exactly what is allowed (lol) in refereeing a journal submission but surely the current situation is a bit rubbish. I've been a non scientist reader of New Scientist for 40 odd years and this sort of issue comes up quite regularly. Journos, scientists, engineers and the rest are all unhappy with the way "publication" happens at some level. This is way more fundamental than open vs closed too. Change is indicated but it will require quite some effort.
  • bitexploder 4y ago
    Always, always, always “manage up”. When people in some service role like a counter person for an airline hold this much power over you, you lose almost nothing by treating them like they are the most important person in the universe. Talk them up, be overly kind, do everything you can to make their job and life easier. It isn’t fair, but I have found you will experience much less friction in life following this philosophy. Are they right? Is Anthony from the linked article “right”. No, of course not, but they have a sliver of power that happens to be extremely important to you for whatever reason and they can and will hit you with it as hard as they can and you never know what someone else is going through or where they are at in life. Don’t chance it, at least not over small stuff like this.
    • Litost 4y ago
• gary_0 4y ago
  > Getting angry and adversarial They didn't get angry and adversarial, they just explained and asked for clarification. Of course, kafkaesque bureaucracies don't like that, so making a random trivial change and obsequiously resubmitting is still probably the approach to use if you want to stay in business. Google these days is like something out of Brazil.
  • stevage 4y ago
    Examples of angry and adversarial: > Who do I contact if Anthony is not doing his job correctly? > This is becoming a joke at this point. > So I just have to close my business because one person in the review team is having a bad day? > Like is this serious?
    • euler_angles 4y ago
      You're right about the tone of those statements. But just how much dystopian bureaucracy can one take before expressing displeasure at the dystopian bureaucracy?
      • _yb2s 4y ago
        Once you've lost your cool you've also lost.... so take as much as you can!
        • 6510 4y ago
          You are just embracing the dystopia at this point.
          • _yb2s 4y ago
            Quietly accepting the abuse, and getting angry are two sides of the same coin, both of which are basically "just embracing the dystopia." Notice that the same people that do the first, will eventually do the second once pushed far enough, with ultimately, the same results. It's perfectly fine to express displeasure in a calm and collected way, the same way you would patiently correct a child... e.g. "I am really disappointed that ____, can you please ____?" (without being sarcastic or condescending) But losing your cool doesn't correct anything, it just expresses emotional weakness and makes the person dislike you and not want to help you. Someone customer facing at a place like Google sees angry upset customers all day long, and probably makes fun of them to their friends and family, but doesn't go out of the way to help them. What they don't often see is people showing strength and calm in the face of this BS. Someone that can endlessly adapt and redirect things back to their own clear goals regardless of what is thrown at them, without even needing to be adversarial. Think Bruce Lee's "Be like water." In most cases, this will be off script for them, and they actually won't know how to deal with that other than giving you what you want.
• Isamu 4y ago
  >literally insisting we do something we already did >I try to just own the fact that I didn't make my explanation clear and visible enough Exactly, I think this works the best. You don’t have to explain the reviewer’s mistake and risk them misunderstanding your reply for being argumentative, the reviewer doesn’t have to admit a mistake, and your writing likely benefits from additional clarity.
• xiphias2 4y ago
  A comment added that he should just have added ,,Report objectionable content''. On the screenshot there was only a ,,Report'' button under blocking user. I think the person who submits the app underestimates how much heat Google can get from advertisers and people for the content itself.
  • kevincox 4y ago
    I think the root cause of confusion is that the reviewer took "Report" to mean "Report User". A simple fix would be to change the button to "Report Comment" or "Report Comment as Objectionable Content". To me this actually makes the interface more clear because honestly when I see "Block User" and "Report" I'm not completely sure that we have gone back to talking about the comment after the first button is talking about the user.