This page written circa 2 August, 2019.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The editor cannot see the reviewer;
Peer review falls apart and cannot hold;
Mere anarchy reigns in journals.
My student Rahat and I have been trying to get a piece of work published for months. It is quite elegant if I say so myself, but quite different from the accepted wisdom. Bounced from journal to journal we saw a lot of haywire, contradictory, and often unconvincing reviews. I cannot resist presenting the summaries of the three reviewers that arrived for the editor who finally accepted the paper:
Reviewer: 1
Recommendation: Reject (no resubmit)
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: No
Is the paper technically sound?: No
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: No
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: Accept (minor edits)
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes
Is the paper technically sound?: Good
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Good
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Good
Reviewer: 3
Recommendation: Accept (minor edits)
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes
Is the paper technically sound?: Yes
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes
Now you can understand how the editor might give up with only two reviews. What would you do? I have a couple of those on my plate right now. Getting decent reviewers is hard work these days, with the ranks swollen with less able researchers in these days of governments trying to push 30% of the population through a tertiary system geared to accelerate only the top 5%. So many less suitable, less trained people are being asked to pass judgement upon things about which they know too little, and they are too self-interested to volunteer that they know too little, or too shallow to realise that.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of peer review is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
The 'best lacking conviction and the worst full of passionate intensity' reminds me of the Brexit situation, if not the Trump one as well. There is an excellent summary from a very wise man on Brexit: Brexit: Who Benefits? Who was conned?. I have a lot of time for Anthony Grayling, and he has written some very balanced and clear polemics on the subject on his web site. Brexit is a mess, and probably tainted (according to Carole Cadwalladr) by the same kind of dodgy proletariat manipulation that surrounds the Trump Campaign. Meanwhile, I have to admire Cambridge Analytica for managing to monetise their ability to con so many of the proletariat without leaving much evidence. That is a technical triumph, although unethical and probably illegal.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
What might be better than democracy? Consult Eric X. Li.
With apologies to, and admiration of, William Butler Yeats.