Beyond the Veil: A Look into Peer-Editing

I don’t peer-review unless I’m forced.

Admittedly, I hate it. Editing someone else’s paper is fine, but having someone look over mine has never been anything more than a test of torture. From high school, I’ve never known anyone who has improved my paper. And I know this sounds uppity, and perhaps hyperbolic to say that in all of my years I’ve never known a good peer editor. Either they’ve been unqualified and unaware of the topic I’m writing for in any valuable way, or they’ve been lazy, and also only editing out of force.

My experiences with peer-review are threefold:

• When my mom used to read my papers in middle school, and would nit-pick details she didn’t understand which would frustrate both of us that she wasn’t editing what I needed (she was okay with grammar edits, I admit)
• The few times in university I subjected a STEM-oriented boyfriend to listen to me read off the paper. Totally unexpected, they hardly listened, and claimed the information went over their head but they ‘guess it makes sense’ (when all I wanted to know was if I explained concepts well enough someone unfamiliar could understand it)
• Forced peer-review sessions in high school and university whereby no one wanted to do it and, frankly, no one was prepared well enough to do anything, and so it mostly boiled down into ‘your editing won’t help because this isn’t even close to being done and will look nothing like this in two weeks.’

I, on the other hand, am a brutal editor. The red pen is my best friend. I admit, I’m not the most constructive. I rip things apart, and I love to do it. But that’s because I’m very good at knowing what does not make sense and what does not belong, while I’m not so good at telling you where to go. Sometimes I am, but I’ve also most often been given papers that are directionless and unfinished, and so giving ‘where to go’ advice has never been necessary. The person knows – they just haven’t gotten there yet.

TAing has forced me to be a little more directional, but I’ve learned students don’t have direction at all nowadays. If I don’t even have your thesis to work with, how can I tell you where to go? I can make rough suggestions, but it’s easier to tear the bad things down to create flat ground to rebuild on. It’s harder to add safely onto a building that is crumbling at the foundation.

Excuses, I know, but I’m my own worst editor. No one will ever hate what I write as much as me. No one will ever be as honest. No one has ever had the guts to rip me to shreds (and do it in a way that makes sense, and isn’t simply to look ‘good’ in front of the teacher).

But that’s the thing, I like ripping into my writing. I like printing it out and crossing out sentences, drawing arrows to move paragraphs. If I was a light editor, I’d think it was totally useless. Plunge your hand into my chest and pull out my beating heart, or don’t even bother (not to be dramatic).

So, my concept of good peer-review would probably be ‘wrong.’ I think you need to copy-edit, rework grammar and sentence structure, acutely spell-check this work. I think you need to make sure things are clearly defined – terms, yes, but especially the point of the paper. If I can’t find your thesis and why you engaged in this work, my time has been wasted. I think pointing out the questions I had, and the points I feel have been missed but would be beneficial to add in for understanding and general satisfaction of the reader is beneficial (though, often ruined by word limits).

Overall, reviews should follow five key points:

1. Clear: Articulating comments properly so the author knows what their good and weak points are. Also, provide rationale at key points where the author may question why you’ve suggested a change or removal.
2. Objective: Don’t insert your own biases or ideas into the review of a paper, just because you don’t like the topic doesn’t mean this is at all pertinent.
3. Timely: Don’t make someone wait weeks for a review (unless this timeline has been previously established). Try to stick to the date you said you’d be done by, and if you can’t, communicate this.
4. Respect: No matter how brutally you rip a paper apart, this shouldn’t be an attack. Respect should still be present for the author and their work. You’re trying to help their work improve, not induce a Menty B (mental breakdown, for those of you not ~hip with the lingo~)
5. Comprehension: A reviewer should work to ensure they comprehend the guidelines of the submission (ie. what the journal is) as well as make an effort to understand the content present in the work. If it’s just editing for grammar, this is less integral. Working with the entire article is also important (unless otherwise stipulated).

I think people tend to misunderstand firm and ‘brutal’ editing as unkind. I think it is more unkind to let someone off with a sub-par article, and let them jaunt to a journal and have their dreams crushed. Constructive criticism can be within the realm of the hardass editor, it’s all in how the work is framed. I heard something the other day saying “if you’re afraid to give criticism, you’re just unaware of how to say it nicely” and that’s kind of the way I envision it. So, maybe to the chagrin of others, if you hand me your paper I will hand it back doused in red ink, and I have no plans for changing my method in future. C’est la vie.