Peer review-how to decide what to recommend

[formerly_the_fiver]

There are lots of discussions about dealing with the peer-review process on the author side, but I've been able to find very little on the reviewer side. I'll try to keep it brief-ish. I'm in a humanities-type field.

I peer-reviewed an essay last summer. I recommended revise and resubmit, which was the result the author got. Now I'm reviewing the resubmission, and my only options are to recommend acceptance or rejection. I'm really on the fence.

On the one hand, almost all my recommendations were followed, and the essay is a lot stronger now. The essay ties together some trends in the field in an interesting way, and it contributes to the diversity of the field, which I view as a strong positive. My field tends to be quite conservative, particularly among the older scholars, but even with some of the younger ones trained at certain universities. There has been movement forward in recent years, and I believe this essay is a contribution in that direction. On the other hand, there are still some issues with the essay. One is the writing quality: on the original submission, there were a number of errors or strange locutions, and these have been fixed in the revised parts, but in the new sections, some creep back in. Secondly, there are some assertions that I think some readers would feel are unsupported by the evidenced provided.

I feel like my own impostor syndrome is causing me difficulty with this, too. The journal is the premier one in my field (one which I don't think I will ever be published in), and I'm afraid that my own judgment isn't astute enough to decide. I also don't want to be a "gate-keeper" by contributing to the suppression of newer types of scholarship. I keep going back and forth with a decision.

Thanks for reading.

F5

[Parasaurolophus]

I'd recommend acceptance. You can probably add a note to the editor about the new issues, or even append a new report, despite recommending acceptance. And if that just won't cut the mustard for the top journal in the field, the editor(s) are still free to decide that.

I'm in philosophy. Our acceptance rates are around 3%-5%, especially for the first couple tiers of journals. And the result is that an awful lot of what gets published is very narrow and epicyclical logic-chopping, and a lot of really great, groundbreaking stuff doesn't make it. I think that's a holdover from a bygone era, and I don't think my job, as a referee, is to reject anything and everything for which I can think of an objection. Clearly, I'm in the minority where that's concerned.

But anyway, the upshot is that I prefer to err on the side of acceptance (or R&R), especially when what I'm refereeing is ambitious or unusual. I can always publish my nitpicky objections as a reply, or turn them into a standalone paper.

[Morden]

The journal's copy editor will probably deal with some of the strange phrasing.

[saramago]

If you choose "accept", nothing says this cannot be conditional. The system may be rigid,  but the editor is a person, so write to him/her what you think, thoroughly, and don't worry about the dichotomous yes/no choice. Then the editor will do their job.

[pigou]

If your concerns are relatively minor and easy to fix (writing, some unsubstantiated claims that aren't central), I'd recommend acceptance and include a referee report pointing out the things that still bug you. It'd be easy for the editor to ask for those minor changes without sending the paper back to you again.

[Hegemony]

I'm on my third round of revision for a journal — any reason you can't ask for another round, with the assurance that if these things are fixed, the article will be accepted?

[formerly_the_fiver]

Thanks for the advice, all. I will keep pondering it and decide over the weekend.

Hegemony, the instruction from the Associate Editor, with whom I've been corresponding, was specifically to give a recommendation to accept or reject; there are no other options.

[Golazo]

This sounds like an "accept with changes"--which I've just finished (though it felt more like another round of R&R). I would write in your reader report that you recommend acceptance subject to a,b,c. Note the challenges with the writing as something that needs to be fixed in the editing stages (though his varies considerably even among "good" journals. I've suggested reject and resubmit, which wasn't an official option but one that nonetheless the editor was able to select.

[jerseyjay]

Ultimately it is the editor's (or editors') decision. I would write a report that says essentially what you said here, viz:

This submission is much improved after the recent revisions, which satisfy my last report. This submission ties together some trends in the field in an interesting way, and contributes to the diversity of the field. [I would suggest being more specific, obviously.] As a result, it merits publication in This Journal. At the same time, the submission would be further improved by additional changes. [I originally wrote revisions, which would be technically correct, but also imply another R&R round.] There remain some assertions that do not seem to be fully supported by the evidence provided. Some examples are.... For a stronger paper, I would urge the author to either provided more evidence, or to modify these assertions. Finally, the submission would benefit from being read with an eye towards writing quality; there are several [spelling? grammar? idiomatic?] errors, especially in passages that have been added since the last revision.

The editor could decide to do with your review what he or she desires. You have made the decision requested, but also given your broader advice. I would be concrete because merely speaking in generalities probably would not be that useful.

[Sun_Worshiper]

If the author did what you asked, then for the love of god don't reject the paper.

[glowdart]

Let the editor edit. The reviewer's job is not to copyedit, but rather to assess the article's arguments and scholarly worth. You've clearly said it has worth. Point out the types of writing concerns you see, mention the areas to substantiate more if possible, and recommend publication. Unless you're reviewing for a sham journal, there is a process yet to come. It is a rare writer who places articles in reputable journals without editing post-review.

[formerly_the_fiver]

Thanks, all. I submitted my review today, and did as suggested. I appreciate the advice.

F5