Can you quote from a peer review report?
December 10, 2010 8:48 AM Subscribe
copyright/amademic publications filter: When someone writes a peer review report on a paper you hope to publish, and that review reaches you in its full original version, what is your position on quoting from it, or all of it, in, say, a book? Could you still quote from it, or all of it, if you didn’t mention the name of the reviewer?
I assume you are talking about anonymous peer review rather than open peer review.
You should talk to the journal that organized the review. They may consider the entire peer review process to be confidential, and you might jeopardize your relationship with them by doing this, as well as pissing off everyone involved, and anyone else who gets wind of it.
As far as the legalities, you should talk to your institution's lawyers, who will consider the four factors of fair use and other relevant things. Publishing an entire unpublished work doesn't look so great in terms of fair use. I would figure that would not be allowed.
posted by grouse at 8:59 AM on December 10, 2010
You should talk to the journal that organized the review. They may consider the entire peer review process to be confidential, and you might jeopardize your relationship with them by doing this, as well as pissing off everyone involved, and anyone else who gets wind of it.
As far as the legalities, you should talk to your institution's lawyers, who will consider the four factors of fair use and other relevant things. Publishing an entire unpublished work doesn't look so great in terms of fair use. I would figure that would not be allowed.
posted by grouse at 8:59 AM on December 10, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks proj & grouse...
@proj: I expect if I ask the journal, the editor will say I don't have permission to quote. I do get the impression that it's a bit of a tradition in some circles for the reviewer's identity to be unofficially revealed. Both the editor and the reviewer gave info or allowed it to slip through that revealed the identity. For that I would like to give credit. Also the fact that the review was a piece of very bad practice does not, I admit, entitle me to reveal it for that reason.
@grouse: Thanks for mentioning the four factors. It looks like if I did quote it entirely, it would be 'actionable', but it also looks like I would get away with it if I was prepared for a bit of minor hassle.
posted by Razorinthewind at 9:30 AM on December 10, 2010
@proj: I expect if I ask the journal, the editor will say I don't have permission to quote. I do get the impression that it's a bit of a tradition in some circles for the reviewer's identity to be unofficially revealed. Both the editor and the reviewer gave info or allowed it to slip through that revealed the identity. For that I would like to give credit. Also the fact that the review was a piece of very bad practice does not, I admit, entitle me to reveal it for that reason.
@grouse: Thanks for mentioning the four factors. It looks like if I did quote it entirely, it would be 'actionable', but it also looks like I would get away with it if I was prepared for a bit of minor hassle.
posted by Razorinthewind at 9:30 AM on December 10, 2010
I'm also not sure what kind of peer review it would be where you know who it is enough to wonder about leaving their name off.
The most I would be comfortable seeing in print would be acknowledging that something ultimately arose from a reviewer's comments, but not to actually quote it. Since you're talking about citing it in a book, something like "A reviewer of an earlier piece drawn from this larger project (cite that piece), for whose comments I am very grateful, argued that blah foos the bar. This comment implies that blah bleeeargh."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:31 AM on December 10, 2010
The most I would be comfortable seeing in print would be acknowledging that something ultimately arose from a reviewer's comments, but not to actually quote it. Since you're talking about citing it in a book, something like "A reviewer of an earlier piece drawn from this larger project (cite that piece), for whose comments I am very grateful, argued that blah foos the bar. This comment implies that blah bleeeargh."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:31 AM on December 10, 2010
It also depends what you want to do.
Example A: The reviewer makes an excellent point that leads you to revise your argument somewhat. You paraphrase them and say in a footnote "I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for Journal of X Studies for this insight." Later, in your book, you do the same thing.
Example B: The reviewer says something you strongly disagree with. You ignore it, and later, you write in your book that "The opinion '[Blablablah]', expressed by an anonymous reviewer of my article Razorinthewind 2010, is typical of the fundamentally wrongheaded approach of an older (and now, mercifully, expiring) generation of scholars."
I think one of these is acceptable and the other is not; you can probably work out which is which.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 9:37 AM on December 10, 2010
Example A: The reviewer makes an excellent point that leads you to revise your argument somewhat. You paraphrase them and say in a footnote "I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for Journal of X Studies for this insight." Later, in your book, you do the same thing.
Example B: The reviewer says something you strongly disagree with. You ignore it, and later, you write in your book that "The opinion '[Blablablah]', expressed by an anonymous reviewer of my article Razorinthewind 2010, is typical of the fundamentally wrongheaded approach of an older (and now, mercifully, expiring) generation of scholars."
I think one of these is acceptable and the other is not; you can probably work out which is which.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 9:37 AM on December 10, 2010
Copyright presumably rests with the author of the review; I have never given up my copyright when doing a review. So I doubt there is any legal issue with quoting under fair use. But talk about burning your bridges, especially if you are so sure the editor wouldn't give you permission! Really don't do this; even neutral parties who might sympathize with your bad review [judging from the followup post] if told as a private anecdote won't be at all sympathetic to you airing whatever the issue is in print.
posted by advil at 9:38 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by advil at 9:38 AM on December 10, 2010
Ah--didn't preview. Looks like you want to do something like Example B. Beware.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 9:39 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by lapsangsouchong at 9:39 AM on December 10, 2010
Response by poster: @ROU_Xenophobe: It does look like I'll have to express my comments on the review in the kind of style you suggest, though with considerably less respect for someone whose review details pretty explicitly how people like him have killed the discipline itself. (I expect you posted your comment as I was posting mine, so hopefully mine will answer your question on what kind of confidentiality was involved.)
posted by Razorinthewind at 9:41 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by Razorinthewind at 9:41 AM on December 10, 2010
Just to clarify: "airing whatever the issue is in print" in this way.
posted by advil at 9:47 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by advil at 9:47 AM on December 10, 2010
Response by poster: @lapsangsouchong & advil: I'm getting the impression from what you say that not only would it annoy the editor and reviewer, but also third parties too, if I quoted directly, and especially naming the reviewer. I definitely won't quote the review now, only mention its issues indirectly; also I won't name the reviewer.
Apart from the good will of third parties though, there is nothing for me to lose as without fixing the peer review problems, including routine blocking of some of the most insightful contributors, the field will remain a farce. Publishing in other fields, where I've never had a problem, won't be affected, since they wouldn't find out, but mainly because they wouldn't be surprised by bad behaviour in the discipline.
posted by Razorinthewind at 9:56 AM on December 10, 2010
Apart from the good will of third parties though, there is nothing for me to lose as without fixing the peer review problems, including routine blocking of some of the most insightful contributors, the field will remain a farce. Publishing in other fields, where I've never had a problem, won't be affected, since they wouldn't find out, but mainly because they wouldn't be surprised by bad behaviour in the discipline.
posted by Razorinthewind at 9:56 AM on December 10, 2010
Quoting without permission seems like a very bad idea, somewhere between tacky and potentially legally actionable depending on the specifics. Even extensive paraphrase seems dubious given your hostility to the report you want to quote. I think there is very likely a better way to do what you want to do; why not find a published expression of the views aired in the report and disagree with that? Unless there's some specific argument you're making about the discipline's sub-rosa tacit beliefs/expectations differing from its explicit public ones, this seems like kind of dirty pool.
I've seen this done in a far more charitable way — e.g. a scholarly book with a whole new afterword responding explicitly, with permission and gratitude, to insights gleaned from its readers' reports — and it still struck me as pretty tacky. Readers' reports are private for a reason: they can be much more direct and informal without the threat of publication hanging over every word. Dragging them into print seems needlessly quarrelsome at best. From your follow-ups here it seems like you're looking for approval to adopt your own bad academic ethics in responding to what you see as another field's ethical problems/"bad behavior." Far better to take the high road.
posted by RogerB at 10:08 AM on December 10, 2010
I've seen this done in a far more charitable way — e.g. a scholarly book with a whole new afterword responding explicitly, with permission and gratitude, to insights gleaned from its readers' reports — and it still struck me as pretty tacky. Readers' reports are private for a reason: they can be much more direct and informal without the threat of publication hanging over every word. Dragging them into print seems needlessly quarrelsome at best. From your follow-ups here it seems like you're looking for approval to adopt your own bad academic ethics in responding to what you see as another field's ethical problems/"bad behavior." Far better to take the high road.
posted by RogerB at 10:08 AM on December 10, 2010
Bringing up a negative review in a publication and talking about why it's so dumb and bad seems deeply unwise.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:50 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:50 AM on December 10, 2010
Response by poster: @RogerB & ROU_Xenophobe's final: OK – I get the message! 'Universally unpopular' in almost any form.
Thanks to all. I won't mark this as answered for a while, in case anyone has a comment substantially different.
posted by Razorinthewind at 11:06 AM on December 10, 2010
Thanks to all. I won't mark this as answered for a while, in case anyone has a comment substantially different.
posted by Razorinthewind at 11:06 AM on December 10, 2010
You should not quote an anonymous referee without permission in published text. You especially should not quote an anonymous referee and say "and the referee is so-and-so" without acknowledgement that your guess is correct!
If you need to communicate with the referee, you could contact the editor and see if the referee is willing to be unblinded, but typically this would happen if you thought communicating with the referee would be helpful (as in, you would like to revise your paper to be co-authored with the referee because the referee had so many insightful things to say). But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It sounds like you want to make trouble. Don't do this---you will certainly succeed, but perhaps not for the person you hope to.
Honestly, you're coming off as a bit of a crank. If that's not your intention, you might want to think about rephrasing your arguments.
posted by leahwrenn at 11:12 AM on December 10, 2010
If you need to communicate with the referee, you could contact the editor and see if the referee is willing to be unblinded, but typically this would happen if you thought communicating with the referee would be helpful (as in, you would like to revise your paper to be co-authored with the referee because the referee had so many insightful things to say). But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It sounds like you want to make trouble. Don't do this---you will certainly succeed, but perhaps not for the person you hope to.
Honestly, you're coming off as a bit of a crank. If that's not your intention, you might want to think about rephrasing your arguments.
posted by leahwrenn at 11:12 AM on December 10, 2010
Response by poster: @leahwrenn: Thanks Leah (or Lea H.?). I think I'll call it a day now. I do appreciate the efforts you've all made; my concern that the dangers of peer review have yet to be understood have however been underlined. Rest assured though, there will be no quotes or naming, thanks to the advice here :-)
posted by Razorinthewind at 11:22 AM on December 10, 2010
posted by Razorinthewind at 11:22 AM on December 10, 2010
If you can briefly summarize, I'd do something like this:
It has been argued that (summary of your detractors arguments, in your own words, maybe with one or two sentences quoted directly") however, when one considers (ontrary evidence A), (contrary evidence B) and (contrary evidence C) this strongly suggests that (an explanation other than your detractors arguments).
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:56 PM on December 10, 2010
It has been argued that (summary of your detractors arguments, in your own words, maybe with one or two sentences quoted directly") however, when one considers (ontrary evidence A), (contrary evidence B) and (contrary evidence C) this strongly suggests that (an explanation other than your detractors arguments).
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:56 PM on December 10, 2010
It sounds like what you want to do is not dispute a comment that relates specifically to your paper, but rather give a critique of how peer review functions in general (especially as regards your discipline). There's definitely an argument to be made against peer review, just as there's one to be made for it.
If this is the case, I think you'd be better off collecting your thoughts--and supporting evidence, for example in the shape of other people's horror stories, or sympathetic senior figures' doubts about the way things are done--and writing an opinion piece for the Chronicle or Times Higher Eduction. I know the Chronicle allows people to do this kind of thing anonymously, so postdoc X doesn't destroy his chances of ever getting a tenure-track position. When I've seen such pieces in the past, they do give details but are careful to anonymize who did/said what.
So instead of this:
If this is the case, I think you'd be better off collecting your thoughts--and supporting evidence, for example in the shape of other people's horror stories, or sympathetic senior figures' doubts about the way things are done--and writing an opinion piece for the Chronicle or Times Higher Eduction. I know the Chronicle allows people to do this kind of thing anonymously, so postdoc X doesn't destroy his chances of ever getting a tenure-track position. When I've seen such pieces in the past, they do give details but are careful to anonymize who did/said what.
So instead of this:
In his review of my article 'The Singing Fishes of Zerepshan Rapids: recent genetic research', Professor Sir Hilliard Halliard of Harvard University explicitly stated that he rejected all articles that did not accept the paradigm he and his colleague Bartholemew 'Barty' Stokes elaborated in their 1962 work Fish can't sing, and circulated 'do not hire' warnings about their authors to department chairs across the country....you'd get this:
One young academic received an explicit warning, in a review of an article she had submitted, that the reviewer--a senior Ivy League professor in the same field--systematically rejected all articles on the subject that did not adhere to his own theories, and deliberately acted to block the tenure prospects of their authors.posted by lapsangsouchong at 5:33 PM on December 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by proj at 8:56 AM on December 10, 2010