Edited by Mike Wright, David J. Ketchen, Jr. and Timothy Clark
Chapter 7: Squeezing lemons to make fresh lemonade: how to extract useful value from peer reviews
Many years ago, feedback from an editor induced me to formulate a rule that proved very valuable, so valuable that after some years, I began to call it my golden rule. Other authors will find this rule useful. It states: ‘No reviewer is ever wrong!’ This rule is valuable partly because it makes an assertion that seems patently ludicrous and bizarre. Any human being, even an editor or reviewer, may err. Sometimes editors or reviewers make comments that appear stupid or they recommend changes that are unethical or methodologically incorrect. Occasionally reviewers seem arrogant, disrespectful and even nasty. Therefore, to declare that reviewers’ comments are never wrong might appear irrational, but this apparent irrationality draws attention to a more fundamental truth: editors and reviewers are only reporting what they thought when they read your paper and every editor and every reviewer is a potentially useful example from the population of potential readers. A reviewer is likely to be a better source of information than is a typical reader in that a reviewer probably reads more carefully than a typical reader does and nearly every reviewer ploughs through an entire paper instead of giving up in disgust after a few pages.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.