aa r X i v : . [ c s . D L ] N ov A Tale of Two Referees
Hannes LeebNovember 18, 2020
Abstract
Success in academia hinges on publishing in top tier journals. Thisrequires innovative results. And this requires clear and convincing pre-sentation of said results. Presentation can make the difference of one tierin journal level. A lot of useful advice on this topic is available online fromwell-respected outlets; see, for example, El-Omar (2014); Gould (2014);Neiles et al. (2015); Notz and Kafadar (2011); or Sachdeva (2020). Thistext provides a different angle.
Two types of referee
When your research is completed, it comes to preparing a manuscript for sub-mission. You select a target journal, study its style and write your manuscriptaccordingly. In doing so, it is helpful to look at what will happen after submis-sion.The handling editor will select a number of people to referee the paper.Ideally, the editor picks at least one person whose specialty is the subject areaof your paper, an expert or ‘maven;’ the maven’s opinion on technical correctnessand innovation will carry a heavy weight. And the editor also picks someone toevaluate your paper’s merits from a broader perspective, who is not myopicallyfocused on the particular subject area, a non-expert or ‘muggle.’ Sometimes,there will be several or combinations of these two types; sometimes, one of themwill be missing. As this is unknown to you at the time of writing, it is wise toassume that both a maven and a muggle will referee the paper.You need to prepare the manuscript so as to get a positive report from boththe maven and the muggle. In doing so, it is best to assume the worst of them.This facilitates a more detailed description of these two types of referee. The muggle will almost certainly be an expert in his own area; but as far a your paper isconcerned, he is a muggle. he moody muggle Try to look at things from that referee’s perspective: He has to spend severalhours evaluating someone else’s research in an area he is only vaguely familiarwith, hours that he would gladly spend otherwise. Standard arguments in yourarea may not be known to him, he will at best skim over the technical parts.His attention span will be short. And as soon as he has lost attention, he willwrite his report. He is a moody muggle. That said, the moody muggle rarelyis openly hostile, just moody. Your paper should be written so as to elicit astrong positive report from him.You have about 5 pages to win over the moody muggle. For this, you needto get him positively excited about your results and about their broader impacton the field, without over-selling. Do this as non-technically as possible. Avoidformulae as much as you can. Avoid insider talk. Accomplishing this in about5 pages is crucial, but can be extremely difficult. The rest of the paper shouldbe written so that the moody muggle can get a superficial understanding byskimming through it. The moody muggle is a smart guy. And if you can holdhis attention long enough to hammer home your main points and innovations,without getting him confused, you are halfway done.
The mean maven
If the handling editor is any good, the maven will not be your friend. He might bein competition with you, or your results might extend, replace or contradict hisown work. He might even have an interest in delaying or avoiding publicationof your paper. Ergo, the mean maven. You will not get an enthusiasticallypositive report from him. The best you can hope for is a grudging admissionthat the results are correct and innovative.The mean maven does not need convincing that your paper’s area is im-portant; he is working on the same stuff. He does, however, have an interestthat the journal is not polluted by publication of faulty, incomplete, irrelevant,incompetent or otherwise mediocre work. You need to write your paper so youdo not give him any angle of attack. The mean maven will check whether all therelevant literature is cited (most likely, his name will be in the bibliography).He will be vain and he will not respond well if you denigrate his own work. Hewill look for errors, clumsy arguments, possible generalizations, or conceptualissues in your results. The first two must be avoided at all costs. The other twoshould be addressed in the paper. It is always better to discuss an issue beforethe mean maven can raise it in his report.The good thing about the mean maven is that his attention span is practi-cally unlimited. After the first 5 pages, the rest of your paper should be focused2n not giving him an opening.
Satisfying both
Eliciting a positive report from both the moody muggle and the mean mavencan be conflicting objectives. As a global optimum may not exist, an iterativeapproach is in order: Write a first version of the manuscript to satisfy the moodymuggle. Then read this from the mean maven’s perspective and re-write themanuscript accordingly. Next, read from the moody muggle’s perspective andre-write again. Repeat this. Several times. Stop only when a complete pass-through from both viewpoints does not lead to further changes. Finally, submitand wait. If you are very lucky, you can skip the next section.
Dealing with reports
Critical reports will happen. The most infuriating ones are one-line rejections.The most useful ones are detailed discussions. Before deciding what to donext, wait until you can read the reports with a sufficiently clear head. Usefulfeedback is not necessarily pleasant feedback. And even though some reportsare positively inane, you should still try to get the most out of them. Verysmart people have read your work and provided their feedback, however detailed,however positive, however reasonable. Use it and revise the paper accordingly,irrespective of whether or not it was rejected.If the editor invites a revision, the replies to the referees should be preparedwith great care. Gauge who wrote a report, a muggle or a maven. Mugglessometimes provide interesting feedback and suggestions, not all of which arepractical. If there was a mis-understanding, eliminate its source and respondkindly. A maven’s suggestions should be followed to the letter, to the extentthis is possible. If this is not so, respectfully but firmly stand your ground.After a rejection, aspirations sometimes have to be adjusted. Otherwise,just move on to the next journal on your list.
References
E.M. El-Omar. How to publish a scientific manuscript in a high-impact journal.
Advances in Digestive Medicine , :105–109, 2014.J. Gould. How to get published in high-impact journals: An es-3ential guide. http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2014/06/06/how-to-get-published-in-high-impact-journals-an-essential-guide/, 2014.B. Neiles, C.S. Carey, A. Araujo, D. Burkhart, L.J. Kirschman, B. LaBumbard,S. LaGrange, J.J. Maine, A.M. Rombenso, M.N. Wood, and J.G. Boyles.Writing your way into high impact factor journals. Bulletin of the EcologicalSociety of America ,96