Debbie Downer Reviewers

What if academia was built on a culture of collaboration?  What if we tried to give each other truly constructive feedback?  What if we met people on their own terms and didn't try to impose our vision onto their work?  What if we started each review by highlighting what we liked about a piece?

Don't be a Debbie Downer reviewer!

Maybe it's just me, but these days it feels as if academic culture (and academic reviewing more specifically) has become overly negative.  It's as if we're all channeling our inner-Debbie Downers whenever papers come across our desks.  But, does it have to be this way?

A couple years ago, my colleague--Erik Schneiderhan--wrote a great piece about the meanness of academic reviewing.  He makes some great points and argues that we could all stand to be a bit more gracious in our comments to authors.  He writes, "Try to build people up rather than knocking them down. It might make you feel good, and it will show the recipient that good-quality reviews need not skimp on being nice."

What great advice! Erik is right. Being critical doesn't mean that we have to snipe people in our reviews.  We don't work in a zero sum world.  We work in a collaborative one.  And maybe it's good to remember that from time to time. 

It sounds corny, but there is truth in this adage.

I, for one, have learned so much from gracious reviewers over the years.  These weren't always positive reviews, but they were almost always written in a tone that didn't feel dismissive or combative.  They were written with a tone of critical appreciation.  These reviewers have pointed out areas of papers that needed clarification and/or elaboration.  Others have pointed me to key readings that have broadened my horizons and helped me make better sense of my data.  And then, there are the occasional reviewers who simply remind me that not everything I write is s**t. God bless those people.

So, what can we do?  I'm just shooting from the hip here, but maybe there are some easy things that we can implement that will subtly change the review process?  Maybe we can start each review with a belief that there is something absolutely great about the paper we're about to read? How might looking for the positive change the ways we react to shortcomings and weaknesses in the paper?  How might this approach change the tone that we use when evaluating papers?

Or, maybe we can remember that we're engaging with a person's ideas during one point in the long life cycle of a paper?  The author might not have all of the kinks worked out, but perhaps they have a good idea or two that could really become great with a little more work?  I've recently experimented with this latter technique and it's made a huge difference in my experience as a reviewer. It's made me appreciate every paper I've read in recent memory and it made me feel grateful to have opportunities to help authors improve their work.  

Anyways, this was just a little rant about the negativity in academic reviewing.  Let's try to be more supportive.  I know it sounds hokey, but we are in this thing together and we can all make this game a little more collegial and collaborative.