reviewer profiling
Music: The Surreal Life (season 3/2003)
Yesterday I finished reviewing my tenth essay as a peer reviewer for the academic year. Given that I reviewed twice this many last year, I see this as a huge improvement to my quality of (academic) life. Nevertheless, as I was reviewing my second article for the day, I couldn't help but think of my presentation tomorrow: a talk to our grads on the "revise and resubmit" that will include a humorous profiling of reviewerly types. What type am I? My talk will begin with a description of what happens in the review process (replete with some screen shots of the manuscript reviewing program many of our journals utilize). I'll then briefly discuss the dreaded "rejection" and what it means. Finally, I'll turn to a discussion of what to do when one gets a "revise and resubmit" from an editor.
As I noted, part of my discussion will involve (folk) psychological profiling, which I hope is both useful and a little entertaining. How does one make sense of the personality behind a review? Can one "profile" reviewers to help her in the revision process? I think so. I'd like to share some of the personality profiles I've developed to make sense of the reviewers of my own work. Obviously the easiest are the extremes; it gets harder when one has a reviewer that is, er, not extreme.
First, one's profiling depends on whether or not the blind reviewer is "inside" or "outside" the field, and by "field" I mean Communication Studies. Owing to a host of historically-rooted anxieties, in general reviewers from within the field are prone to a general insecurity that permeates the field, which can result in overly zealous reviews, sometimes a bit of show-boating. Now, I recognize because I like to muck around in theoretical mud, there may be more showboating in my reviews than is normal. Nevertheless, I do think reviewers inside the field are harder to please than reviewers in related fields. That said, here's some personality profiles particular to communication studies that I've encountered:
The Naysayer: Nothing of quality or interest has ever been published in the field, and your essay is no exception. Communication Studies is a sub-par and parasite field, and your essay continues this horrible, alien existence. The Naysayer wanted to be a philosopher or studied comparative literature, but reluctantly took a position in Communication Studies out of necessity. S/he is bitter about being in Comm, and will take it out on you---especially if you take up concepts from high theory or philosophy.
The Gusher: If you're lucky enough to get a gusher, you'll recognize him by the very brief but highly complimentary review. This reviewer is often someone you cite in your essay approvingly, or at the very least someone who strongly identifies with your line of research. Alternately, the gusher thinks your essay is "good enough" and would just like your essay to go away. This kind of reviewer is rare; sometimes they admit who they are and offer to buy you a drink at the next conference. The Gusher is typically either a narcissist or deeply hysterical. Don't worry about this reviewer for a revision; he or she is pleased and anything you do will make him or her happy.
The Assassin: If you're unlucky enough to get an assassin, you'll recognize her by the way in which absolutely nothing is redeeming about your essay. In fact, the assassin will insist your work is the worst thing she has ever read and is embarrassed for the field that you submitted it in the first place. The assassin will accuse your work of "destroying the field." The assassin doesn't like anything that crosses her desk. The assassin is usually male, older, and white and particularly hostile to a feminist or queer anything. Editors keep these people on their boards to quickly kill off a manuscript they want killed off. You will not be invited to revise and resubmit if you get an assassin, so you should totally ignore what they say about your work.
The Turf Pisser: This reviewer is convinced no one reads such-and-so a theorist (Burke, Lacan, Barthes, and so on) better then they do. Although they have probably only read one work by the theorist, they are convinced they hold the Skeleton key and that you have approached the wrong Door of Understanding. This reviewer asserts a given theorist must be read as they read them, and that you are an embarrassment to Such-and-So studies. Of course, the Turf Pisser is deeply insecure and is using the review as an opportunity to Show Boat. If you get a Turf Pisser, acknowledgement of the validity of their perspective will go a long way to getting your review accepted. In your response letter, stroke this reviewer and thank them profusely for correcting your gaffs. If you can figure out who this person is, cite their work in your revision. Whatever you do, do not challenge the Turf Pisser's authority.
The Empath: This reviewer is super rare. This person finds potential in your essay, strokes you on the things you do well, and has very helpful suggestions for fixing the things you don't do well. This person is usually older and imagines you are either a graduate student or beginning junior scholar and sees reviewing as an opportunity to help you---and the field---along. Basically, the Empath is like the late Janice Hocker Rushing: she was raised in a strong supportive family, has amazing, supportive colleagues, and sees the good in everyone. Crap: how I miss Janice!
Well, I'm think I’m getting weary and need to prep for school today (meeting after meeting, topped of with shots for Birthday Boy DJ Smokehouse Brown). I'd love to hear of other reviewer profiles that I might share with students today!