@grahamkendall.bsky.social
Ethics in publishing, my other research interests, as well as personal posts 𝕏: https://x.com/fake_journals LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/103288284/admin/page-posts/published/
Just the one you never forgot. Even just a short quote from the review report would be interesting to hear.
And sometimes they are simply memorable.
________________________________________
So I am curious…
What is the most memorable reviewer comment you have ever received?
Not necessarily the harshest.
________________________________________
But the reality is…
Most researchers accumulate a small collection of unusual reviewer comments over time.
Sometimes they are confusing.
Sometimes they completely misunderstand the paper.
Occasionally they are unexpectedly insightful.
⚫️ It focuses on the work, not the author
⚫️ It provides specific and constructive feedback
⚫️ It explains why changes are needed
⚫️ It aims to improve the paper, even when recommending rejection
When reviews are written this way, they genuinely strengthen the scholarly record.
________________________________________
Peer review at its best
Despite occasional moments like this, peer review remains one of the most important quality control mechanisms in research.
Good peer review usually has some clear characteristics:
Looking back, I now find it quite funny. In some ways, I wear it as a badge of pride. A small sign that I have been through the “Reviewer 2” mill, just like everyone else.
I suspect most academics who have been through peer review enough times will have similar stories.
At the time, I remember being quite taken aback.
The comment felt rather personal, and it certainly did not explain what the reviewer believed was wrong with the paper. There was no other feedback.
“This author has already written a paper on this topic, and that is one paper too many.”
It goes without saying that the reviewer recommended the paper should be rejected.
A comment I have never forgotten
Many years ago, I submitted a paper and received a review that included the following line:
Reviewer comments that are… let’s say, memorable.
________________________________________
Many researchers can point to reviews that genuinely improved their research.
But most academics who have published a few papers will also have encountered something else.
The strangest reviewer comment I ever received
Peer review plays a central role in scholarly publishing.
At its best, it improves papers, strengthens arguments and helps authors see their work from a different perspective.
🧵
The Ctrl-Z Award: Recognizing the courage to correct or retract published work retractionwatch.com/ctrl-z-award/
RT @Thatsregrettab1: Finished AJCR's 2023 volume. Found about 76 papers with concerning images, only using ImageTwin (w/o looking for anything else). The editorial board (including @weldeiry) must be so proud.
Guest Post - The Perils of Using Generative AI to Perform Research Tasks: Editors’ and Publishers’ Viewpoints - The Scholarly Kitchen scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/03/09/g...
Stolen economics study retracted following Retraction Watch coverage retractionwatch.com/2026/03/09/s...
A simple question
When you receive reviewer comments, how do you approach them?
Do you treat peer review as a genuine opportunity to improve the paper?
Or mainly as a hurdle to publication that needs to be cleared?
I would be interested to hear how others approach this.
The uncomfortable truth is that reviewers often invest far more time in the process than authors do in reading the comments.
________________________________________
Good reviews can:
⚫️ Identify weaknesses the authors missed
⚫️ Suggest better ways to frame arguments
⚫️ Strengthen methods and analysis
⚫️ Improve clarity for readers
Many researchers can point to a paper that became significantly better because a reviewer asked the right question.
The process becomes something to navigate rather than something to learn from.
________________________________________
What peer review is supposed to be
At its best, peer review is one of the most valuable parts of academic life.
⚫️ Treating the response letter as a negotiation exercise
⚫️ Resubmitting quickly to another journal after rejection without revising the work
None of this necessarily violates any rules.
But it does change the spirit of peer review.
⚫️ Addressing reviewer comments in the most minimal way possible
⚫️ Responding defensively rather than reflectively
⚫️ Focusing on persuading the editor rather than improving the paper
The goal becomes getting the paper through the system rather than carefully reflecting on the feedback.
________________________________________
How authors sometimes respond
Most researchers take peer review seriously.
But editors and reviewers regularly encounter behaviours such as:
For many researchers, the first thing they look for in the editor’s email is the decision:
⚫️ Accept
⚫️ Minor revision
⚫️ Major revision
⚫️ Reject
Once that outcome is clear, attention quickly turns to the next step in the process.
And sometimes the mindset quietly shifts.
In theory, peer review is a quality improvement process.
But in practice, the way some authors engage with reviews can look rather different.
________________________________________
When the decision becomes the main focus
That is the principle at the heart of scholarly publishing. Independent experts read a manuscript, provide detailed feedback, and help the authors strengthen the work before it becomes part of the scientific archive.
Do researchers really engage with peer review?
Peer review is supposed to improve research.
🧵
Is authors’ treatment by publishers getting worse? | Times Higher Education (THE) buff.ly/OREDAUo
Rethinking the Economics of Diamond Open Access | UCL Press | buff.ly/n9udpYd
If you work in a university leadership, planning, or a ranking team, I’d be particularly interested in your view
What do you think are the most important factors in improving a university’s ranking?