Reviewing for a possibly "biased" journal

[quasihumanist]

I have been asked to review a paper.  I am a good person to review this paper and I am reasonably interested in its contents, and normally I would accept (despite accepting two other requests recently), but...

Based on what I have heard through the grapevine and on my one experience with the journal, I am inclined to believe (but am not certain) that the journal is biased against the subsubsubfield of this paper (which is a subsubsubfield I work in and want to promote).  This means the bar for papers in this subsubsubfield to get accepted is (as far as I can tell) quite a bit higher than the bar in other subsubsubfields.  (Of course, a comparison of papers in different subsubsubfields is a subjective judgement, and the editors are entitled to their tastes.)  I am afraid that the editors have sent it to me without quite realizing the subsubsubfield of the paper (otherwise they'd just desk reject) and, when they read my review and realize what the contents of the paper are, they will basically reject it no matter what I say.

I don't really want to waste my time (and it's a sufficiently long and complicated paper that reviewing is a week of research time - not unusual in my field) if my opinion isn't going to be respected.

I could either

A) just accept this request, or

B) write the editors and ask them about whether they're really interested in this paper before accepting.

As far as I can tell, the possibilities are:

1) I am wrong about this bias.

2) I am right about this bias but can sneak this paper past the editors by recommending acceptance and describing the paper in a way that hides what its contents are.

3) I am right about this bias but can't sneak this paper past the editors.

(Of course, there is a fourth possibility that I'll discover significant flaws in the paper upon reading and won't recommend acceptance, but I think that's not too likely.)

The problem with choice (B) is that, while I save myself work and aggravation in scenario (3), I also make scenario (2) impossible.  Advice?  Other considerations?

[Wahoo Redux]

I always really value readers' reports.  I learn a great deal from them and they (almost) always make my writing a great deal better.

Do a true blind peer review.  Accept or decline based on your expertise. Give good, specific advice in your comments one way or the other; know that you will be helping to make this a better article down the line whether it is published in this specific snoot-journal or not. 

And if the paper is accepted by the snoots at the journal, groovy!  You've helped your subsubsubfield.

And if the paper is not accepted by Journal of Snootology, you have still helped the writer out by giving them something to work on for the next submission.  And thus your subsubsubfield triumphs either way.

In short, maybe do the review with the author in mind, not the snoots at the journal.

[Parasaurolophus]

I try to put my thumb on the scales at fancy journals with reputations and histories of bias against my subfield. I think that's perfectly fine and fair, and it's resulted in a few papers getting published in those venues. So generally, I'm in favour of that.

That said, the time and energy I have to invest to do that is nothing like what you have to invest. I don't envy my colleagues in your discipline, or where ours overlap. I think it's worth a try if you aren't working to a deadline on something else, but otherwise, I'd decline and, if the system permits it, tell the journal that it's because its reputation is such that you doubt anything on the topic will make it through, regardless of your verdict.

[Hibush]

This looks like a large investment of time, so you need to consider the question carefully.

If you do accept, the review should make a very strong case that the subsubfield is very important. Put the manuscript in the context of the exciting and intellectually deep scholarship in the subsubfield.

For your own sake, though, make sure that you don't do more reviewing than the editors expect. Part of the reviewer crisis is reviewers getting burned out by putting excess effort into the review, most of which is then ignored by editors and authors. Knowing the real expectations is crucial to maintaining your productivity as a reviewer.

[Myword]

A good answer is hard without knowing the subject or subfield.

[theteacher]

I see it this way: If I need to change something (given that I think I'm capable of doing a better job than existing people), I must make the initial investment to climb the ladder.

So, for example, you need to fix a journal acceptance; you must start by reviewing papers -> apply for guest editor roles -> associate editors, etc.