Aarhus University Seal / Aarhus Universitets segl

Avoid these phrases in your peer review

Podcast featuring Christine Parsons and Rebekah Baglini, IMC

2021.03.03 | Anne-Mette Pedersen

Hello PhD - Podcast for scientists, and the people who love them

151. Avoid These Phrases in Your Peer Review

The Peer Review villain, alternatively known as ‘Reviewer 2’ or ‘Reviewer 3’, has gained meme status. This is the person who takes your submitted journal article, drenches it in red ink, shreds it, burns it, and feeds the ashes to feral pigs.

And unfortunately, it has happened to all of us. There always seems to be one reviewer that doesn’t just ask for additional experiments, but finds a way to cut a little deeper.

Maybe it comes in the form of an emotive shaming (“Disappointingly, the authors failed to cite Smith, 2015”) or a veiled accusation (“It seems possible that the outlier data has been scrubbed from this report.”), but however it happens, it can affect something more than your experiments.

Some hostile comments might make you wonder whether you belong in science at all.

But, it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it shouldn’t be this way.

This week, we talk with a linguist and a psychologist about carefully crafting your peer reviews.

Hear the podcast now    



Christine Parsons, Associate Professor
Department of Clinical Medicine and IMC

Rebekah Baglini, Assistant Professor
School of Communication and Culture and IMC