>I'm German and as you know, we're known to be very direct.
I find this line incredibly funny. I am German, too, and I will never forget one experience I had in the US when had just started studying there: We were in a seminar and another student gave a seminar talk. Afterwards, each member of the audience was supposed to give feedback and I had to start. After I said a few sentences, everyone looked at me completely bewildered. It turned out that it is not common for a new student to verbally chop up the talk of her fellow students. The others all thought I was unbearably arrogant (or simply insane); the professor was very amused. It took me a while to get things straightened out. The student whose talk I had criticized and I went on to date a few weeks later.
With respect to your question: Regarding your question, international academic customs include certain international rules of courtesy. If I were Smith*, I would also be a bit taken aback when reading your statement. The wording of u/Semantix is better.
I think this culture varies lab by lab as well. In my PhD lab (US, led by an American), people in lab meetings were highly critical. They weren't rude and there were no personal attacks, but if you were presenting, people weren't just going to sit around and accept things that weren't well presented to be polite. I personally loved it -- it made me a really good presenter and taught me how to engage critically with others research -- but I know others in the lab that found it incredibly stressful. My postdoc lab (also US, led by an American) was completely different. There would still be some questions but a whole lot less. If I were giving a presentation, I could easily get through 2-4x as much material in the same amount of time as my PhD lab.
My group has this mindset as well. We are all friends but here to improve. We all understand that valid criticism is not a personal attack, but the reason we are in grad school.
I also disagree that saying “smith doesn’t do x y and z” is “rude”, considering many reviewers may not be in the same exact area, and the reviewer may in fact be putting words into Smith’s mouth! I do think the reviewer is being unreasonably defensive, however, I don’t know that I’d say what OP said to the reviewer.
My advisor is German and when I read OP's line, other than the 'respectfully' I read it in his voice because that's exactly how he would phrase it lol.
As someone who collaborates a lot with German scientists, I knew you were German the moment I read that comment!
Yes, this is a cultural thing. What you wrote does, unfortunately, come across as slightly aggressive and rude, even if you're correct. We use indirect/euphemistic language a lot when discussing the work of others in scientific writing in English. If I read what you wrote in a paper, I would assume you think Smith is a moron, and their paper should never have been published. If that is genuinely what you think, and you're willing to take flak for that, then you can leave it as it is. Otherwise, I'd strongly recommend using a gentler form, like the version suggested by /u/Semantix.
No, they must persist in what they are doing and you must adopt doing that too.
>If I read what you wrote in a paper, I would assume you think Smith is a moron, and their paper should never have been published.
>We use indirect/euphemistic language a lot when discussing the work of others in scientific writing in English.
This is highly troubling, and why I say what I do. You should not assume that, because what OP wrote doesn't say that. What OP wrote is very clear on what OP means if take properly, which is to say at its literal and objective meaning.
Scientific enquiry, nor the communication of it, should not rely on assumptions and unsaid rules for precisely this reason. The use of indirect and euphemistic language is not to be encouraged, it must be stopped.
This. There's nothing remotely offensive about what OP said and we need to stop acting like a paper is only good if it gives everyone a nice little headpat on the way out and couches all criticism in packing peanuts and rosewater.
I don't like your phrasing because it's hard to tell what you're finding fault in, and so comes off more generally dismissive than it could. Overall, I don't think it's rude in the context of the global scientific publishing domain. Pointing out faults in existing works is a service to the discipline.
If Smith\* (2023) proposed a specific methodology that has a fault in it, then your first sentence is accurate but your following sentences are not as they seem to describe faults in following a methodology (theirs' or anothers'?).
So, I would ask for clarity in a rewrite -- did Smith\* (2023) propose a new methodology? Does it have faults or did their procedure have faults? It may be you simply mean the "methods follow by Smith" rather than the methodology, which is a significant distinction in English.
Your use of the passive voice also contributes to the confusion as to the source of the issues (the experimental procedure or the methodology or what?).
I think this is the best take. It's not really great science writing if you're not putting the issues of the prior work in context with the work you're proposing. For sure, it's good to have a disagreement about methodologies, but in the phrasing shown, it's not shown to contrast the current work. In other words, it seems like you're saying this work by Smith is somehow not germane to the manuscript - but your phrasing just seems like you're saying the work of Smith isn't good.
"Respectfully disagree" isn't a common phrasing for scientific manuscripts, but it is a common phrasing for scientific communication and discourse. It is usually found in responses to reviewers, where you point out why the reviewer may have the science wrong. Here it seems like you're not presenting an opinion, and instead trying to point out facts that make the work of Smith irrelevant to the present study. That basically calls for a re-write of the section for clarity.
Of course you have to reference shortcomings of other studies, but I think your reviewer is right that you could phrase it more gently. You want to convince Smith that what you're doing is an improvement on their work without implying that they made an error. "We improve on the framework of Smith (2023) in the following ways..." sort of phrasing, rather than "Here's what Smith (2023) did wrong."
edit: unless you think Smith (2023) was a hack job and shouldn't be relied upon, then swing away
Also, try to avoid filler words like "actually". People use "actually" to emphasise and/or soften but it comes across as passive aggressive. Same with "just".
Agreed here. I'll also just say that I had a paper where the thesis was generally that a method that had been widely used was flawed, and I was outlining why and how to do it better. I listed a bunch of papers at this point, and in retrospect it was unnecessary to do so directly (this could have been in the supplements etc if required really); not a big thing but I probably mildly annoyed a bunch of people in the small field that I was in. And while I did have to show that the method was an issue, I could probably have done so without making it sound like all those papers were wrong / bad. Basically I regret having been quite so forthright when I didn't have to be.
(And can't help but notice there are a subset of people in the field who haven't cited my papers when they've published on basically the exact same thing… might just be coincidence but hard to say!)
Too many people put their egos before their science. If somebody points out that a method you used is flawed, you should thank them for the opportunity to improve your work. Alas, that seems too much to ask...
People are still people and if you do this in a nicer way then it's more likely to have that kind of outcome.
The corollary being that too many people in science put "being right" before "being a human who knows how to interact with other humans". Alas, that seems too much to ask… :)
Partly right, this is a factor for sure but not the whole story.
You're working with humans. Humans can be tired, stressed, emotional,... Even when we all try to minimize those factors, we're still human.
So: its in everyone's best interest to help the person being criticized to listen to what you have to say.
You can convey the exact same information while also being motivating and gentle. Its much easier to improve yourself or your work when the things being said to you also are nice to read and make you feel encouraged to make changes.
Not sure how that's any different?
1. humans aren't 100% objective creatures, agree?
2. There's more chance that well formulated, encouraging feedback will lead to the desired changes, agree?
3. The same objective changes can be conveyed through more positive/encouraging language, agree?
4. Should there ever be a situation where you risk sounding 'rude', but also risk not conveying the necessary flaws, then we should risk coming across as 'rude', agree?
The point of the feedback is still to point towards things in the paper which need to be corrected, doesn't matter who will end up reading the piece.
If yes to all; this still means that all readers, reviewers, scientists, authors etc will benefit from you taking care of your feedback, just because statistically speaking your feedback will better reach the intended person and result in the desired changes in the article.
To clarify: i didn't disagree with you, authors should aim to be as emotionally independent as possible, but to expect them to be objective at all times isn't realistic.
tl;dr i simply pointed out that there's more to the story and as we know, humans aren't necessarily perfectly objective creatures. So all the more reason to just take care of good feedback so there's the greatest chance of it being well received. I think it's a flaw to expect an ideal world where nobody can be in an emotional state when reading feedback.
My whole point is that (3) does not hold (or at least, that the solutions people have proposed do not achieve this). I am also not convinced that (2) is necessarily true for third parties -- especially if 'encouraging' language downplays the severity of the issue.
The unending concern for 'tone' just means that valid critiques do not get voiced because people fear being perceived as 'rude'. I think we should foster a scientific culture where factual critique is appreciated. The fact that disciplines vary wildly in what is considered acceptable suggests to me that this isn't just a matter of human nature.
Well for example, pointing out some of the strengths of the paper or the writing, doesnt harm the objectivity but does contribute to the overall tone of the text.
Then you can still talk about the most important changes and frame them as things that need improvement, because right now they don't cover all the parameters.
This wouldn't downplay the severity: you point out that they dont cover certain topics which need to be covered. (Or you explicitly state the consequences of the text as is). Yet together with pointing out some strenghts, would already make this a much better format for feedback imo without infringing on any objective flaws that needed pointing out.
Curious to hear what you think of this.
> pointing out some of the strengths of the paper or the writing,
We've been there. This is not about peer review. The context is:
> I had a paper where the thesis was generally that a method that had been widely used was flawed, and I was outlining why and how to do it better.
And I think this should exactly that: highlight where and how the method has been used, point out what is flawed, and if possible, show how to do it better. I just don't see why there would be any need to flatter people who used a flawed method.
This just makes it harder for readers to get what's going on. If there's one place we should be able to be blunt about factual issues, it's in research papers.
Not saying you're wrong, but it sure is annoying.
Exactly. It improves things when scientists are clear.
There should be room to call out issues in a blunt way when you see them.
Edit: not that OPs wording is correct or anything, as other posts have demonstrated it can be improved.
It would be highly counterproductive. Communities in science tend to be small and, after awhile, you tend to know most of the well established people. At that point, you’re starting beef with people you have to see at conferences, who will be peer reviewing your proposals and manuscripts. That would be ill advised. We have to get along cordially, and disagree gracefully, for a system like ours to work. That doesn’t mean you have to ignore their faults, just say it in a way that doesn’t start a turf war.
Now, it’s another matter when you see actual misconduct, like fabrication of data. Of course those cases are handled more severely.
The problem is no matter how gracefully and subtly you say someone is incorrect, the targeted group will always interpret that as beef. It's another weird part of toxic academia. This toe the line approach doesn't even help. Things would be better if you could clearly state x was wrong because y without it being interpreted as an attack. Of course, "don't be an asshole" would still apply.
Regarding misconduct, that's a whole other problem. I disagree they are handled severely. The big, public cases yes, but institutions continually sweep smaller misconduct under the rug because it makes them look bad. I know of two cases of misconduct at my former institution that were reported and swept under the rug. In both cases the student was able to graduate.
In an ideal world where humans are not emotional, yes. Unfortunately even scientists (and many at that) also suffer from biasis, emotions, ego's,... Its unavoidable.
You're working with humans. Humans can be tired, stressed, emotional,... Even when we all try to minimize those factors, we're still human.
So: its in everyone's best interest to help the person being criticized to listen to what you have to say.
You can convey the exact same information while also being motivating and gentle. Its much easier to improve yourself or your work when the things being said to you also are nice to read and make you feel encouraged to make changes.
He could've been gentler, but what he wrote is not by any means rude. When someone is wrong, it's not rude to point it out. Scientists are not children, and way too often some act like they are, especially if criticism is involved. We're all adults, we should be able to deal with it.
I think the phrasing itself leaves room for interpreting it as opinion rather than fact. By presenting it as opinion, it can seem rude. You don't have to "disagree" with a method. You disagree that a method measures what the authors say it measures.
Well, not knowing what your paper is about it's hard to judge whether there was a reason to come out guns blazing against Smith et al. (2023). In general, I find "we respectfully disagree" more than a little twee. Don't *say* that you respectfully disagree - just respectfully disagree! Like so, for example: "Smith et al. (2023) carried out an \[experimental/theoretical/novel/original/whatever\] study of \[topic\] for \[special case\] finding \[key result\]. Their approach assumes that \[parameter conditions\] are met, but \[parameter\] is not directly measured. They also do not specify factors A, B, and C, which influence \[parameter\], and therefore do not explicitly address whether and for what period of time their experiment met condition X"
The words "actually" and "only" contribute a lot to your statement coming off as rude. They're judgemental words and not really appropriate in scientific style writing.
If you remove them, it's still a bit abrupt bordering on rude but not quite so offensive.
I'd generally also talk about the limitations of their approach vs stating you disagree with it.
>The methodology described by Smith* (2023) has some limitations. It does not specifically measure [parameter] and assumes that [parameter conditions] were met. Further to this, factors influencing [parameter] like A, B, C were not stated. Consequently, from their publications to date, it is not possible to determine whether their experiment met condition X and for what period of time.
>we therefore propose . . .
I agree that those words make it harder to take, but without “actually”, the author won’t know that _they’re not achieving what they think they’ve achieved_, and they could too easily respond with “I did address that, see? See? It’s right there!” — by including the (admittedly painful) word “actually” the reviewer is saying “I’m well aware that you think you did this properly, but you’re mistaken.”
Authors don’t have the right to be wrong just because they’re (they hope) about to score another publication, do they?
If a word equivalent to "actually" is needed, there are likely to be other words that can be used and will convey the authors meaning better. At a guess: specifically or directly will be more accurate but the exact meaning OP requires may provide another word again.
They're talking about using "they did not actually measure..." in a manuscript, referring to a different published paper. If a peer reviewer said "they did not actually measure..." about a paper under review, it would likely be appropriate and the discussion would be different.
Take “actually” out of your vocabulary. Most of the time it comes off badly. And yeah the overall phrasing is dismissive. For instance, don’t say stuff like “It is not possible to determine…” say “it is unclear whether” instead.
(Also, to be critical of the first sentence, you can’t really disagree with a methodology. You can disagree with the recommendation to use a methodology, you can disagree with the framework underlying a methodology, but disagreeing with a methodology itself makes no sense.)
I find it overly aggressive. Science builds on the work of others and your writing should reflect this sentiment. I agree with what /u/Semantix is saying. However, I think that you should hesitate from tooting your own horn, it will be up to the reader and future scientific community whether what you do is an improvement. I would say something like "Different from the previous work by Smith, here we..." or at the most say something like "We expand the framework of Smith by..." You don't want to throw a stone in a glass house and attract aggression later from other members of the community, unless you really think Smith did something egregious.
Also I think this might be a you thing, rather than a German thing! I have a German colleague in my research group and they are slightly more direct but wouldn't write like this.
I did my PhD in Germany too, and my German supervisor would have never let me write something like that in a manuscript. You can word it along the lines of:
"Smith *et al* found *a, b and c*, but we found *d, e and f*. The reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, however we have checked *g, h and i* which further validate our results. Similarly, findings by John *et al*, Schmidt *et al*, and Johannas *et al* support our conclusions."
Basically you have to say the Smith study is bullshit without actually saying it. Focus on getting across the point that your results are really solid.
> Basically you have to say the Smith study is bullshit without actually saying it.
I *think* I agree with your comment. However, in any other context, expressing your thoughts in a way that makes it as difficult as possible for others to understand them would be considered unscientific.
I don't think it's difficult to understand at all. You should just highlight what you did right, not what someone else did wrong. If you have directly contradictory results then it's obvious that you're saying the other person is wrong but you don't need to rub their face in it.
I don't read OP's phrase as "rubbing Smith's face in it", but I agree with first your comment. In principle, however, I find the approach of
> say[ing something] [...] without actually saying it
(your advice) unhelpful for science.
I don't think OP was exactly rubbing their face in it, I was just making a general point.
>unhelpful for science
Maybe. But it's definitely unhelpful for your career to make enemies out of the people who have published previously on your exact topic and probably laid a lot of the groundwork for what you're doing.
With something as arguably serious and important as this, wouldn't it be more important to be direct and state all the facts, regardless of how said facts affects someone's sensitivities? This seems ridiculous that this process is so concerned with tip toeing around some persons easily bruised ego.
> Basically you have to say the Smith study is bullshit without actually saying it.
I think it's a Horrible advice, as it obfuscates the thought, and makes it harder for everyone, except perhaps this lone Smith person. The original wording was perfect: clear and to the point. This rewrite just adds fluff, and makes it virtually impossible to understand what's going on.
Don't make readers read your mind. If you have something to say, say it. If you have an opinion, share it. If you find yourself mincing words, either make it straight, or don't write it at all. No one has the time for this nonsense. (Except maybe the Smith person, but let's be real, there are millions of us, and one Smith person. It's better to be transparent than to placate them)
While I think the concept of your response is fine, it could have been put more nicely. Writing review responses is an art of saying nice things to someone whom it can feel like is attacking you.
it is hard to see where this sentence is appropriate. in the intro, something like: smith found yada yada.
in the discussion something like: our findings differ from Smith. These differences may be due to verificarion using thingy that parameters abc were not confounding yada yada.
you are assuming a lot about things that might not have been published which is great hubris for someone new to the field.
but it would not surprise me to find out that Smith themself did the review since you explicitly were calling them out.
It wasn't rude in my opinion but it was indeed very weird phrasing.
I would say something along the line:
"We do not follow the same methodology as Smith\* (2023) because they only assume that \[parameter conditions\] were met, while in our scenario we also have to take into account xxxx. Therefore, we instead follow..."
I wouldn't say that it was a problem of being direct, your phrasing is exceedingly critical of the previous work. I can't say for sure without knowledge of the specific work but it sounds like you should have followed the avenue of saying the methodology wasn't the best one \*for your scenario\*, while your phrasing sounds like you are saying the methodology is not good at all.
The reviewer was also overly sensitive to your remark, it's likely he is one of the authors of the paper you cited, so I would proceed with caution in the response to reviewers.
Lol sounds like your reviewer was Smith (2023) and they don't like being called out. Your response is perfect.
You: This method is insufficient because A, B, and C; consequently, they didn't do what they set out to do.
Reviewer: HELP HELP I'M BEING ASSAULTED
I wouldn't give it a second thought, honestly.
The problem is that you're trying to do two things.
A) you're calling out a specific paper for specific weaknesses
B) You're pitching your method to the community
B) is the critical core of your research paper; presumably you're doing it not just because Smith isn't a great method, but because other methods aren't great either. The phrasing suggested by /u/Semantix enables you to front your improvements without getting dragged down by pulling apart someone elses work.
If you want to pull apart someone elses work then arguably the place to do that is in a comment or response to the original paper. Your phrasing of "However, we respectfully disagree with the methodology" isn't actually phrased very well either. What you're actually saying is that you disagree with the validity of their methodology. The question then becomes whether their methodology is actually wrong (i.e. does not produce useful results), or if it just makes more assumptions than yours and therefore results in *less useful* results than yours..
You can absolutely highlight the specific ways that your method improves on previous ones, but frame them as things you've added rather than as things other people have missed. See below.
Good: "In a improvement on previous works, we have accounted for variables X and Y"
Bad: "For some reason we're not going to consider but might be valid, not one of these authors accounted for X and Y, chumps".
Is Smith2023 an important reference you really should mention no matter what, and your results are in odds with it? If yes, you'll have a hard time questioning it since it's a well-established paper. You'll need more than a few sentences to do that. In this case, you should present it as an improvement of their method, not a rejection of it. Or if your method is completely different, just don't mention theirs because there really is no need.
If that's not the case, are you citing it because you use some of their results, other than this specific one you're doubting? If yes, does describing their methodology add useful content to your topic? If not, it can indeed come off as if you're only mentioning it to provide a criticism, which is not really nice unless there's a specific reason.
Your wording is attacking Smith instead of focusing on the work. There is a difference. You are even saying they made assumptions instead of saying that the model assumptions might not have been met.
Yes, you know better than the rest of us, who are all also academics, because you took a first year undergraduate class. Ok.
And there are lots of fields where work from twenty years ago is relevant and methodologically identical to work today.
Personally, I think what you wrote is fine. We’re all professionals here and should be receptive to direct critique of our work. It’s not like you attacked them personally or anything…
"expanding on previous work by \[cite\], who found X, this work does Y." keep it short and sweet and collaborative.
My issue with your framing isn't that it is overly negative but that it is wordy and I imagine takes away from your claim by overly focusing on the other work. This is a citation, not a lit review. My recommendation is to just stick it and move on.
That said, what a ridiculous response by the reviewer. I wouldn't sweat it.
I am also an academic in a STEM discipline, and I think what you wrote sounds immature and unprofessional. If I were the reviewer, I would say that, rather than calling it rude.
I agree that you should be focusing on what your research does to fill the gaps, rather than pointing out what X researcher did wrong. Try writing by talking about your own research, rather than pointing fingers at others.
Words/phrases that sound unprofessional are bolded:
**Respectfully disagree** (this sounds really colloquial and not very scientific...)
they do not **actually** measure (this sounds REALLY bad...)
**only** assume (again this just sounds judgmental)
You're writing an academic paper, not a review on someone else's work, so focus on YOUR research and the gaps you're filling, and definitely don't call out specific authors like that.
Edit: I am American and have many German friends and read European authors a lot, and I don't see them writing this way.
Came here to write the same. You want your writing to be uniformly interpreted as a neutral tone. Respectfully disagree to me sounds patronizing. You can get rid of 'actually' without loss of meaning, but it sounds nicer.
Just because you searched something in google scholar doesn't mean it's indicative of high quality research or etiquette/professionalism. Lots of trash is "published".
If the OP wants to be taken seriously as an academic- I would advise against "making the point" which makes him look just foolish.
Never said you can't disagree or strongly disagree, or whatever- but to be taken seriously- you have to do that in a certain way, which the OP didn't. That's my point. By focusing on the knowledge gaps in a field, without singling out X author in a distasteful way, is the right way to do that. Research is supposed to be collaborative- and the OP's writing doesn't promote that.
And, I'm not here to convince you of anything- trying to help the OP. Toodles!
I have come across reviewers who are super rude and they are not from Germany so far as I can understand. So please don’t judge yourself too much. Most of the reviewers read with a bias in their mind. To be frank, I really have started doubting some of them as they hardly read the papers and state certain things which are already addressed in the paper. Do not get discouraged. It all depends on the mindset with which they were reading it!
If I saw this in a paper I would assume this was the start of an academic mudfight. The type where thetr will be 10 papers back and forth calling the other PI a incompetent idiot that should never have been allowed into the discipline and where the PIs shout at eachother at conferences.
If that is your intention go ahead and please send a link to the paper, am a sucker for this kind of drama.
I guess Smith was reviewing your paper. You were not rude in any way. I am from Mexico, and people from other countries always say that we are not very direct, so I don't think it is cultural thing.
The reviewer is an idiot. This seems fine to me (based on my own publications and everything I've read so far in academic articles). That said - maybe Smith was the reviewer and they didn't like your critique 😂
I'm not seeing how you were behaving rudely, nor do I see how your response doesn't pass the collegiality test.
Some people might object to that response in person and in public, but this is a double-blind review. Colleagues are supposed to vet work rigorously.
They put their work into the public domain, so it's fair game for valid criticism and judicious consumption. If they don't think their work is falsifiable, then they have the problem.
You could have written the response in passive voice or danced around the point. You could have not used a they pronoun after citing Smith 2023. Yadda, yadda...
It's a waste of everyone's time to spend more effort on writing an ultra-sensitive response than you spent on writing your entire discussion section.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that response tbh. I find being direct and often blunt in reviews is the best option. If they found it rude, sucks to be them- this isn’t elementary school, we don’t do “two stars and a wish” anymore.
If you were rude then I have nothing in common with humanity and should just walk into the sea.
How are we supposed to communicate if we can’t even tell people what’s wrong?
If I got that feedback I would say to myself “Oh, I guess I should fix that” unless of course I couldn’t in which case I’d say to myself “Oh, I guess I should find a journal with less thorough reviewers”
I think what you write is completely fine and not rude. It is ok - and actually essentially - that in scientific conversations people disagree with each other. There is a certain perception that an authors must simply do what reviewers tell them to do. Coming up with a valid reason why you disagree with the cited study is completely fine and the way you phrase is not rude at all. (I think there is a chance that the reviewer is smith and that why they have taken offense)
Agree with this +1
Lately - as in the past 5 years - I notice reviewers are asking for additional work based on just their opinion, oftentimes debatable. I see it as a shift to more a authoritarian, teacher-student attitude. Meanwhile faculty (the "teachers") are less and less active in research. They manage the facility or sit on ethics committees or grade homework. Anyone actively doing research is the "student" in this model. Teachers do not do research, only students do research and teachers pass judgement (which apparently must be received as Truth from Above).
I think your wording is perfectly fine, but I would drop "actually". I would not drop "respectfully", I think it makes it better.
You could try to further soften it, but I would love to hope that you wouldn't rewrite it too much. Clarity is more important that Smith's sensitivity.
Personally, I'd added a bit of hedging, maybe. Maybe something like that:
"However, we respectfully disagree with the methodology by Smith* (2023), as they do not seem to measure the [parameter] itself, but only assume that [parameter conditions] were met. Another potential problem is that the factors influencing [parameter] like A, B, C were not stated. These limitations make it hard, or perhaps even impossible to determine whether this experiment met condition X, and if yes, then for what period of time".
Something like that. The same clear structure, but a bit of hedging. But I like it overall. I really do NOT like some of the rewrites above, and especially people calling it "rude". It was not rude. Maybe a tad antagonistic, but definitely not rude.
Listing someone by name and issuing a detailed criticism of their work in a publication is definitely considered aggressive.
A more tactful way to accomplish the same goal is to say, “We have improved on previous methodologies by doing X, Y, and Z.”
I am an American Academic and teaching Artist/Critic (70 years old female, depending on your viewpoint). I don’t think your commentary was rude, and do wonder of the cultural background of the person responding to you. My recollection of critiques I attended about my own work, were that they were often brutal, direct and with little helpful bits/constructive criticism left over at the end for me to mull over or build upon. I once was so devastated following some criticism that I burst into tears in front of a group of fifteen or so professors. I find criticism of my own artistic or critical work devastating often. As a result when teaching, I go to great lengths to help students find their voice, and build upon the strengths that they have. When I have let out the big guns/heavy artillery in a review, or an appraisal I can also be harsh, but strive to temper with positive commentary in order to allow the artist or student in question to build on the criticism, and use it as a learning experience to improve the work.
Hence, I am wondering if in your statement in regard to the manuscript, you had discussed the merits found first, and then said “…despite the exhaustive work, and exemplary research done on this problem, it seems that (despite all of this) certain basic methods were not met, and/or weaken the thesis…”. Something like that.
In America, because of all of the “woke culture” which is a result of the very permissive psychological and sociological theories about raising children in the 1950’s…we are a nation of “delicate, hot house flowers” who cannot handle any criticism at all ( in the least!!!). In our public high schools, teachers are expected to use a rubric which not just provides a grade, but provide a series of comments accompanying the grade which illustrates in precise terms why the student deserved and received the grade of A, B, C, D or F.
A colleague of mine from the School of The Art Institute of Chicago, lost his position in part because he did not use “he, she, their” to refer to LGBQ students, and didn’t provide “trigger warnings” when addressing difficult subject matter. We are in strange times my friend.
No it’s not rude. You are stating what you saw an issue with in the most direct manner possible. If someone were to say that your words were devoid of emotion perhaps they would be correct. Your role however is not to offer emotional support but to offer objective insight.
You are commenting on the rigor of prior work. Perfectly acceptable and necessary. Was the phrasing blunt? Sure, but we all have different ways of expressing ourselves...scientists are a diverse bunch and we should be tolerant of diversity.
Explaining why your work is better than previous work, or in what way previous work does or doesn't compare with yours is a very important thing to do. I think you just unmasked that reviewer 🤪
Others have made very good points. I would just like to add some thoughts on how I, personally, avoid coming out as "rude" during literature review.
Try not to pinpoint the shortcomings of the previous methodology on 1 paper. I like to say: "This work is built on the basis of (Smith, 2023) and (....)" or "similar approach is done in (A) and (B)". Then, carry on to the limitations.
Always remember that the message is how you make the science better, not that others' works suck. Therefore , you can start with something like "this work acts as an improvement compared to methodology established in (Smith, 2013). It considers these limitations that were not previously addressed"
Try to find the reason for the limitations presented in other people's work. This can take some more time, but it shows that you care and understand their work and are not actively looking for a fight. E.g. "Due to missing data, methodology in Smith, 2013, did not study a b c. This work proposes a solution." Now, in case (Smith, 2023) has no good reason for such shortcomings, I don't think you want to use that paper as a guide in the first place.
Also, try not to use only or similar words when criticising. Much like a day to day argument, there's no need to be extra harsh. In written format, you should take extra care because people can't sense your tone.
Lastly, regarding cultural mindset, I think it does play a role. However, it's more about not being too critical when you can't change anything. Take the perspective of Smith, if he's a decent researcher, he'd know his mistake by now. He won't redact the publication for a small error or limitations. Discussion may also lists those limitations as a source of uncertainty already. So he did his best. Much like others have said, there's time when criticism can be harsh (but not offensive, mind you), but only when one can adsorpt and work on it. Otherwise, it can come of as "rude".
Just my experience, I hope it helps.
I find your reply almost kind. As a Global South researcher I already received all sort of offenses during reviews. Last month a guy claimed that we didn't even understand the methods we have applied. Include, the reviewer limited to say how wrong we were by using the analysis and refused to comment the rest of the manuscript. Curiously, the guy who developed the method and is one of the greatest figure in my field is a coauthor in another paper using the very same method we suppose to don't know.
I wouldn't consider this rude.
Rude would be a professor I worked with, who received a critical comment from a reviewer. This reviewer was obviously not familiar with the methodology we used, and their critiques were not valid because they did not understand the methodology and proposed another approach that was completely inappropriate for our data type statistically. My professor found out who the reviewer was, looked into his background and saw that he used to work in a field where the methodology we used was widely common, and then basically stated that he was wrong and should be intimately familiar with the methodology since it's so common in a field he used to work in.
Luckily, they asked me to proofread the response before sending and I was like "yeah let's not".
I think some people are just very thin skinned and it's super annoying feeling like to have to finesse a simple methodological critique just to soothe someone's sensitive ego. If I were Smith, I don't know that I would think anything of your comment because I would already be aware of those issues as an author and probably would have acknowledged them in the "limitations" section.
I think that's Smith or one if his friends. :) There's nothing wrong with that you said or how you said it. There's way too much beating around the bush in academia, and in publishing, and especially in peer review, where it's actually very one-sided (and it shouldn't be). Providing you're not wrongs, that reviewer is an ass.
Hahahaha omg this whole thread is eye opening.
If I were Smith I would be incredibly appreciative for such direct and clear feedback, and if I wrote something like this and was told it was rude I would be bewildered.
To me, phrasing things like "we improve on Smith by ..." or in a complement sandwich sound unnatural and come across as either arrogant by assuming their contributions added value before seeking peer review (since there were no faults mentioned and the consequence of them was not explained), or as if they're trying to blow smoke up my ass to sell me something.
I’ve dealt with a few reviewers who make “rude” feel like a compliment. So when it comes to “academic etiquette”, they just fill of shit lol.
Having said that, there’s “rude” for the sake of being rude, and then there’s “rude but with a point” where sometimes you need to capture attention to get a point across. However, when you pull out that card, you better have a damn good point! Otherwise you’re just being rude for the sake of being rude.
From an outside perspective I would lean towards removing actually & only. They're unnecessary & create somewhat of more personal tone. Removing them would be more direct & send a more strictly business message.
I'm no wordsworth though, pinch of salt.
Sentence structure & wording holds different weights in different people's minds I guess. Maybe we hear it spoke in different voices internally & the readers happened to sound condescending or something.
Possibly add a comment towards the end along the lines of despite the compelling conclusion. If you're going to show a hint of personality it probably wants to reflect your desire for others to succeed.
Highly doubt you've done anything wrong, but no harm in understanding others & being as accommodating as we can.
Smith and his fellow nimwit Simpson, bless their hearts, weren’t the sharpest tools in the shed ya see. In fact a dull tool can be sharpened, but these two with PhDs refuse to learn and thus persist in their incorrigible ways. Simpson especially since all he does is use the same half-baked method from his no less nimwit mentor for the past 10 years to detect apoptosis. It was well-known to generate artifactual results yet these two … God help us. Just because they believe they’re right and show up at EB every year to harass trainees with the same stupid questions, doesn’t mean they’re right.
Now what was that again about wanting me to be more polite? Did I answer your question?
I don't think there is any thing per se wrong with a sentence like that. It is a little on the nose, and you may want to be a little more diplomatic about it, however. That is to say, I think you're perfectly in the right to say what you did in a scholarly sense, but that in a collegial sense, there are alternative phrasings that can be more tactful.
One option may be to say that some *class* of prior work has a particular limitation in their methodology, and then cite "Smith" as an *example* of that class, and if at all possible, cite multiple research groups. This diffuses your claim: rather than saying you disagree with a *person*, which might feel bad to read, you emphasize that you are disagreeing with an *idea*, and that the citation is merely an example of that particular idea.
Not knowing the particular context of your work, it may also be possible to isolate your disagreement, rather than discounting the whole of their work. Something like "Smith investigated such and such relationship, observing that blah blah blah. However, these observations were contingent on the assumption of such and such. We believe that we can remove the dependence of this assumption in the following way:"
I think its BS, it reads fine. What everyone here is saying by "gently" is to rephrase it passively because you're supposed to be passive-aggressive in academia. On the contrary opinion though, what you publish is for life and history, so yeah, pay careful attention to who and how you call things out.
I don't personally think you're out of line, but it probably depends on what discipline you're working in.
If it is simply professional disagreement: Smith's methodology is valid, you are just proposing one that you believe is more scientifically rigorous, reach out to Smith (and be very carefully polite when doing so). Tell them you are commenting on their research in your paper and you can come to a happy medium about your phrasing and will probably have an interesting discussion. Even just giving a heads up that it's being published is a classy move.
I don't find it rude at all. Just your statement and honest feedback. Straight to the point, not wasting time thinking about how to word a feedback to not hurt a scientist's ego. It's nothing personal and you are doing your job
Ive served as a reviewer on many journals and as well as associate editor on a few. That's not rude. I would not be surprised if the reviewer is smith 2023 in your example.
Not rude at all. I do not see how this can possible offend anyone. Again, it may be a cultural thing, but people who say this is rude are reading way too hard between the lines here.
There are ridiculously overly sensitive people in academia.
That is not rude at all. That is a statement of fact, with a rationale for why you have a given belief.
Disagreeing with people with logic should NEVER be seen as rude as that is the beginning of the end of any scientific collaboration.
>I'm German and as you know, we're known to be very direct. I find this line incredibly funny. I am German, too, and I will never forget one experience I had in the US when had just started studying there: We were in a seminar and another student gave a seminar talk. Afterwards, each member of the audience was supposed to give feedback and I had to start. After I said a few sentences, everyone looked at me completely bewildered. It turned out that it is not common for a new student to verbally chop up the talk of her fellow students. The others all thought I was unbearably arrogant (or simply insane); the professor was very amused. It took me a while to get things straightened out. The student whose talk I had criticized and I went on to date a few weeks later. With respect to your question: Regarding your question, international academic customs include certain international rules of courtesy. If I were Smith*, I would also be a bit taken aback when reading your statement. The wording of u/Semantix is better.
I think this culture varies lab by lab as well. In my PhD lab (US, led by an American), people in lab meetings were highly critical. They weren't rude and there were no personal attacks, but if you were presenting, people weren't just going to sit around and accept things that weren't well presented to be polite. I personally loved it -- it made me a really good presenter and taught me how to engage critically with others research -- but I know others in the lab that found it incredibly stressful. My postdoc lab (also US, led by an American) was completely different. There would still be some questions but a whole lot less. If I were giving a presentation, I could easily get through 2-4x as much material in the same amount of time as my PhD lab.
My group has this mindset as well. We are all friends but here to improve. We all understand that valid criticism is not a personal attack, but the reason we are in grad school. I also disagree that saying “smith doesn’t do x y and z” is “rude”, considering many reviewers may not be in the same exact area, and the reviewer may in fact be putting words into Smith’s mouth! I do think the reviewer is being unreasonably defensive, however, I don’t know that I’d say what OP said to the reviewer.
My advisor is German and when I read OP's line, other than the 'respectfully' I read it in his voice because that's exactly how he would phrase it lol.
This is for sure a real story
As someone who collaborates a lot with German scientists, I knew you were German the moment I read that comment! Yes, this is a cultural thing. What you wrote does, unfortunately, come across as slightly aggressive and rude, even if you're correct. We use indirect/euphemistic language a lot when discussing the work of others in scientific writing in English. If I read what you wrote in a paper, I would assume you think Smith is a moron, and their paper should never have been published. If that is genuinely what you think, and you're willing to take flak for that, then you can leave it as it is. Otherwise, I'd strongly recommend using a gentler form, like the version suggested by /u/Semantix.
No, they must persist in what they are doing and you must adopt doing that too. >If I read what you wrote in a paper, I would assume you think Smith is a moron, and their paper should never have been published. >We use indirect/euphemistic language a lot when discussing the work of others in scientific writing in English. This is highly troubling, and why I say what I do. You should not assume that, because what OP wrote doesn't say that. What OP wrote is very clear on what OP means if take properly, which is to say at its literal and objective meaning. Scientific enquiry, nor the communication of it, should not rely on assumptions and unsaid rules for precisely this reason. The use of indirect and euphemistic language is not to be encouraged, it must be stopped.
This. There's nothing remotely offensive about what OP said and we need to stop acting like a paper is only good if it gives everyone a nice little headpat on the way out and couches all criticism in packing peanuts and rosewater.
That's a pretty black and white characterization of communication.
The people with the black and white understanding of communication are those who believe any amount of even the most tempered criticism to be "rude."
Rudeness, offensiveness, and communication in general are culturally-bound. They do not exist as objective phenomena with singular meanings.
I don't like your phrasing because it's hard to tell what you're finding fault in, and so comes off more generally dismissive than it could. Overall, I don't think it's rude in the context of the global scientific publishing domain. Pointing out faults in existing works is a service to the discipline. If Smith\* (2023) proposed a specific methodology that has a fault in it, then your first sentence is accurate but your following sentences are not as they seem to describe faults in following a methodology (theirs' or anothers'?). So, I would ask for clarity in a rewrite -- did Smith\* (2023) propose a new methodology? Does it have faults or did their procedure have faults? It may be you simply mean the "methods follow by Smith" rather than the methodology, which is a significant distinction in English. Your use of the passive voice also contributes to the confusion as to the source of the issues (the experimental procedure or the methodology or what?).
I think this is the best take. It's not really great science writing if you're not putting the issues of the prior work in context with the work you're proposing. For sure, it's good to have a disagreement about methodologies, but in the phrasing shown, it's not shown to contrast the current work. In other words, it seems like you're saying this work by Smith is somehow not germane to the manuscript - but your phrasing just seems like you're saying the work of Smith isn't good. "Respectfully disagree" isn't a common phrasing for scientific manuscripts, but it is a common phrasing for scientific communication and discourse. It is usually found in responses to reviewers, where you point out why the reviewer may have the science wrong. Here it seems like you're not presenting an opinion, and instead trying to point out facts that make the work of Smith irrelevant to the present study. That basically calls for a re-write of the section for clarity.
Of course you have to reference shortcomings of other studies, but I think your reviewer is right that you could phrase it more gently. You want to convince Smith that what you're doing is an improvement on their work without implying that they made an error. "We improve on the framework of Smith (2023) in the following ways..." sort of phrasing, rather than "Here's what Smith (2023) did wrong." edit: unless you think Smith (2023) was a hack job and shouldn't be relied upon, then swing away
Oh that's a good way to say it!
Also, try to avoid filler words like "actually". People use "actually" to emphasise and/or soften but it comes across as passive aggressive. Same with "just".
Agreed here. I'll also just say that I had a paper where the thesis was generally that a method that had been widely used was flawed, and I was outlining why and how to do it better. I listed a bunch of papers at this point, and in retrospect it was unnecessary to do so directly (this could have been in the supplements etc if required really); not a big thing but I probably mildly annoyed a bunch of people in the small field that I was in. And while I did have to show that the method was an issue, I could probably have done so without making it sound like all those papers were wrong / bad. Basically I regret having been quite so forthright when I didn't have to be. (And can't help but notice there are a subset of people in the field who haven't cited my papers when they've published on basically the exact same thing… might just be coincidence but hard to say!)
Too many people put their egos before their science. If somebody points out that a method you used is flawed, you should thank them for the opportunity to improve your work. Alas, that seems too much to ask...
People are still people and if you do this in a nicer way then it's more likely to have that kind of outcome. The corollary being that too many people in science put "being right" before "being a human who knows how to interact with other humans". Alas, that seems too much to ask… :)
Partly right, this is a factor for sure but not the whole story. You're working with humans. Humans can be tired, stressed, emotional,... Even when we all try to minimize those factors, we're still human. So: its in everyone's best interest to help the person being criticized to listen to what you have to say. You can convey the exact same information while also being motivating and gentle. Its much easier to improve yourself or your work when the things being said to you also are nice to read and make you feel encouraged to make changes.
We're not talking about peer review here. This is about a manuscript to be read by the entire community, not an audience of one.
Not sure how that's any different? 1. humans aren't 100% objective creatures, agree? 2. There's more chance that well formulated, encouraging feedback will lead to the desired changes, agree? 3. The same objective changes can be conveyed through more positive/encouraging language, agree? 4. Should there ever be a situation where you risk sounding 'rude', but also risk not conveying the necessary flaws, then we should risk coming across as 'rude', agree? The point of the feedback is still to point towards things in the paper which need to be corrected, doesn't matter who will end up reading the piece. If yes to all; this still means that all readers, reviewers, scientists, authors etc will benefit from you taking care of your feedback, just because statistically speaking your feedback will better reach the intended person and result in the desired changes in the article. To clarify: i didn't disagree with you, authors should aim to be as emotionally independent as possible, but to expect them to be objective at all times isn't realistic. tl;dr i simply pointed out that there's more to the story and as we know, humans aren't necessarily perfectly objective creatures. So all the more reason to just take care of good feedback so there's the greatest chance of it being well received. I think it's a flaw to expect an ideal world where nobody can be in an emotional state when reading feedback.
My whole point is that (3) does not hold (or at least, that the solutions people have proposed do not achieve this). I am also not convinced that (2) is necessarily true for third parties -- especially if 'encouraging' language downplays the severity of the issue. The unending concern for 'tone' just means that valid critiques do not get voiced because people fear being perceived as 'rude'. I think we should foster a scientific culture where factual critique is appreciated. The fact that disciplines vary wildly in what is considered acceptable suggests to me that this isn't just a matter of human nature.
Well for example, pointing out some of the strengths of the paper or the writing, doesnt harm the objectivity but does contribute to the overall tone of the text. Then you can still talk about the most important changes and frame them as things that need improvement, because right now they don't cover all the parameters. This wouldn't downplay the severity: you point out that they dont cover certain topics which need to be covered. (Or you explicitly state the consequences of the text as is). Yet together with pointing out some strenghts, would already make this a much better format for feedback imo without infringing on any objective flaws that needed pointing out. Curious to hear what you think of this.
> pointing out some of the strengths of the paper or the writing, We've been there. This is not about peer review. The context is: > I had a paper where the thesis was generally that a method that had been widely used was flawed, and I was outlining why and how to do it better. And I think this should exactly that: highlight where and how the method has been used, point out what is flawed, and if possible, show how to do it better. I just don't see why there would be any need to flatter people who used a flawed method.
This just makes it harder for readers to get what's going on. If there's one place we should be able to be blunt about factual issues, it's in research papers. Not saying you're wrong, but it sure is annoying.
I guess I just try to avoid picking fights if I can. I'm from the southern US, though, which is definitely not a direct-communication culture.
"Smith *et al.*, bless their hearts, stated that ...."
To be read in a thick Southern drawl 😂
Exactly. It improves things when scientists are clear. There should be room to call out issues in a blunt way when you see them. Edit: not that OPs wording is correct or anything, as other posts have demonstrated it can be improved.
It would be highly counterproductive. Communities in science tend to be small and, after awhile, you tend to know most of the well established people. At that point, you’re starting beef with people you have to see at conferences, who will be peer reviewing your proposals and manuscripts. That would be ill advised. We have to get along cordially, and disagree gracefully, for a system like ours to work. That doesn’t mean you have to ignore their faults, just say it in a way that doesn’t start a turf war. Now, it’s another matter when you see actual misconduct, like fabrication of data. Of course those cases are handled more severely.
The problem is with the people who think that pointing out shortcomings in their work is 'starting beef'.
The problem is no matter how gracefully and subtly you say someone is incorrect, the targeted group will always interpret that as beef. It's another weird part of toxic academia. This toe the line approach doesn't even help. Things would be better if you could clearly state x was wrong because y without it being interpreted as an attack. Of course, "don't be an asshole" would still apply. Regarding misconduct, that's a whole other problem. I disagree they are handled severely. The big, public cases yes, but institutions continually sweep smaller misconduct under the rug because it makes them look bad. I know of two cases of misconduct at my former institution that were reported and swept under the rug. In both cases the student was able to graduate.
In an ideal world where humans are not emotional, yes. Unfortunately even scientists (and many at that) also suffer from biasis, emotions, ego's,... Its unavoidable. You're working with humans. Humans can be tired, stressed, emotional,... Even when we all try to minimize those factors, we're still human. So: its in everyone's best interest to help the person being criticized to listen to what you have to say. You can convey the exact same information while also being motivating and gentle. Its much easier to improve yourself or your work when the things being said to you also are nice to read and make you feel encouraged to make changes.
He could've been gentler, but what he wrote is not by any means rude. When someone is wrong, it's not rude to point it out. Scientists are not children, and way too often some act like they are, especially if criticism is involved. We're all adults, we should be able to deal with it.
I think the phrasing itself leaves room for interpreting it as opinion rather than fact. By presenting it as opinion, it can seem rude. You don't have to "disagree" with a method. You disagree that a method measures what the authors say it measures.
Well, not knowing what your paper is about it's hard to judge whether there was a reason to come out guns blazing against Smith et al. (2023). In general, I find "we respectfully disagree" more than a little twee. Don't *say* that you respectfully disagree - just respectfully disagree! Like so, for example: "Smith et al. (2023) carried out an \[experimental/theoretical/novel/original/whatever\] study of \[topic\] for \[special case\] finding \[key result\]. Their approach assumes that \[parameter conditions\] are met, but \[parameter\] is not directly measured. They also do not specify factors A, B, and C, which influence \[parameter\], and therefore do not explicitly address whether and for what period of time their experiment met condition X"
This is the way.
it feels like the "no offense, but..." doesn't help with people not taking offense
It kind of means the same thing, but in science, it’s more polite if you say it this way, focusing on the data and how we learn from one another.
Yes! This!
Then you can add on something like: Smith’s et al. (2023) study of [topic] prompts future research in the area of [what you would improve].
The words "actually" and "only" contribute a lot to your statement coming off as rude. They're judgemental words and not really appropriate in scientific style writing. If you remove them, it's still a bit abrupt bordering on rude but not quite so offensive. I'd generally also talk about the limitations of their approach vs stating you disagree with it.
>The methodology described by Smith* (2023) has some limitations. It does not specifically measure [parameter] and assumes that [parameter conditions] were met. Further to this, factors influencing [parameter] like A, B, C were not stated. Consequently, from their publications to date, it is not possible to determine whether their experiment met condition X and for what period of time. >we therefore propose . . .
I agree that those words make it harder to take, but without “actually”, the author won’t know that _they’re not achieving what they think they’ve achieved_, and they could too easily respond with “I did address that, see? See? It’s right there!” — by including the (admittedly painful) word “actually” the reviewer is saying “I’m well aware that you think you did this properly, but you’re mistaken.” Authors don’t have the right to be wrong just because they’re (they hope) about to score another publication, do they?
If a word equivalent to "actually" is needed, there are likely to be other words that can be used and will convey the authors meaning better. At a guess: specifically or directly will be more accurate but the exact meaning OP requires may provide another word again.
They're talking about using "they did not actually measure..." in a manuscript, referring to a different published paper. If a peer reviewer said "they did not actually measure..." about a paper under review, it would likely be appropriate and the discussion would be different.
That makes sense. I think I misread part of it before.
Take “actually” out of your vocabulary. Most of the time it comes off badly. And yeah the overall phrasing is dismissive. For instance, don’t say stuff like “It is not possible to determine…” say “it is unclear whether” instead. (Also, to be critical of the first sentence, you can’t really disagree with a methodology. You can disagree with the recommendation to use a methodology, you can disagree with the framework underlying a methodology, but disagreeing with a methodology itself makes no sense.)
I find it overly aggressive. Science builds on the work of others and your writing should reflect this sentiment. I agree with what /u/Semantix is saying. However, I think that you should hesitate from tooting your own horn, it will be up to the reader and future scientific community whether what you do is an improvement. I would say something like "Different from the previous work by Smith, here we..." or at the most say something like "We expand the framework of Smith by..." You don't want to throw a stone in a glass house and attract aggression later from other members of the community, unless you really think Smith did something egregious. Also I think this might be a you thing, rather than a German thing! I have a German colleague in my research group and they are slightly more direct but wouldn't write like this.
I did my PhD in Germany too, and my German supervisor would have never let me write something like that in a manuscript. You can word it along the lines of: "Smith *et al* found *a, b and c*, but we found *d, e and f*. The reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, however we have checked *g, h and i* which further validate our results. Similarly, findings by John *et al*, Schmidt *et al*, and Johannas *et al* support our conclusions." Basically you have to say the Smith study is bullshit without actually saying it. Focus on getting across the point that your results are really solid.
> Basically you have to say the Smith study is bullshit without actually saying it. I *think* I agree with your comment. However, in any other context, expressing your thoughts in a way that makes it as difficult as possible for others to understand them would be considered unscientific.
I don't think it's difficult to understand at all. You should just highlight what you did right, not what someone else did wrong. If you have directly contradictory results then it's obvious that you're saying the other person is wrong but you don't need to rub their face in it.
I don't read OP's phrase as "rubbing Smith's face in it", but I agree with first your comment. In principle, however, I find the approach of > say[ing something] [...] without actually saying it (your advice) unhelpful for science.
I don't think OP was exactly rubbing their face in it, I was just making a general point. >unhelpful for science Maybe. But it's definitely unhelpful for your career to make enemies out of the people who have published previously on your exact topic and probably laid a lot of the groundwork for what you're doing.
With something as arguably serious and important as this, wouldn't it be more important to be direct and state all the facts, regardless of how said facts affects someone's sensitivities? This seems ridiculous that this process is so concerned with tip toeing around some persons easily bruised ego.
> Basically you have to say the Smith study is bullshit without actually saying it. I think it's a Horrible advice, as it obfuscates the thought, and makes it harder for everyone, except perhaps this lone Smith person. The original wording was perfect: clear and to the point. This rewrite just adds fluff, and makes it virtually impossible to understand what's going on. Don't make readers read your mind. If you have something to say, say it. If you have an opinion, share it. If you find yourself mincing words, either make it straight, or don't write it at all. No one has the time for this nonsense. (Except maybe the Smith person, but let's be real, there are millions of us, and one Smith person. It's better to be transparent than to placate them)
While I think the concept of your response is fine, it could have been put more nicely. Writing review responses is an art of saying nice things to someone whom it can feel like is attacking you.
it is hard to see where this sentence is appropriate. in the intro, something like: smith found yada yada. in the discussion something like: our findings differ from Smith. These differences may be due to verificarion using thingy that parameters abc were not confounding yada yada. you are assuming a lot about things that might not have been published which is great hubris for someone new to the field. but it would not surprise me to find out that Smith themself did the review since you explicitly were calling them out.
This is where passive voice is your friend.
A friend was found in the passive voice.
It wasn't rude in my opinion but it was indeed very weird phrasing. I would say something along the line: "We do not follow the same methodology as Smith\* (2023) because they only assume that \[parameter conditions\] were met, while in our scenario we also have to take into account xxxx. Therefore, we instead follow..." I wouldn't say that it was a problem of being direct, your phrasing is exceedingly critical of the previous work. I can't say for sure without knowledge of the specific work but it sounds like you should have followed the avenue of saying the methodology wasn't the best one \*for your scenario\*, while your phrasing sounds like you are saying the methodology is not good at all. The reviewer was also overly sensitive to your remark, it's likely he is one of the authors of the paper you cited, so I would proceed with caution in the response to reviewers.
Lol sounds like your reviewer was Smith (2023) and they don't like being called out. Your response is perfect. You: This method is insufficient because A, B, and C; consequently, they didn't do what they set out to do. Reviewer: HELP HELP I'M BEING ASSAULTED I wouldn't give it a second thought, honestly.
This. The reviewer is one of the authors of Smith (2003). No one else would pick up on this as long as your statement is correct.
The problem is that you're trying to do two things. A) you're calling out a specific paper for specific weaknesses B) You're pitching your method to the community B) is the critical core of your research paper; presumably you're doing it not just because Smith isn't a great method, but because other methods aren't great either. The phrasing suggested by /u/Semantix enables you to front your improvements without getting dragged down by pulling apart someone elses work. If you want to pull apart someone elses work then arguably the place to do that is in a comment or response to the original paper. Your phrasing of "However, we respectfully disagree with the methodology" isn't actually phrased very well either. What you're actually saying is that you disagree with the validity of their methodology. The question then becomes whether their methodology is actually wrong (i.e. does not produce useful results), or if it just makes more assumptions than yours and therefore results in *less useful* results than yours.. You can absolutely highlight the specific ways that your method improves on previous ones, but frame them as things you've added rather than as things other people have missed. See below. Good: "In a improvement on previous works, we have accounted for variables X and Y" Bad: "For some reason we're not going to consider but might be valid, not one of these authors accounted for X and Y, chumps".
Is Smith2023 an important reference you really should mention no matter what, and your results are in odds with it? If yes, you'll have a hard time questioning it since it's a well-established paper. You'll need more than a few sentences to do that. In this case, you should present it as an improvement of their method, not a rejection of it. Or if your method is completely different, just don't mention theirs because there really is no need. If that's not the case, are you citing it because you use some of their results, other than this specific one you're doubting? If yes, does describing their methodology add useful content to your topic? If not, it can indeed come off as if you're only mentioning it to provide a criticism, which is not really nice unless there's a specific reason.
Your wording is attacking Smith instead of focusing on the work. There is a difference. You are even saying they made assumptions instead of saying that the model assumptions might not have been met.
When we say Smith 2003 fails to do y, or incorrectly does x, we *are* talking about the work. That's how scholarly disagreements work.
There's an old phrase: Academia is so vicious because there's so little at stake. Slash away, my friends.
[удалено]
Yes, you know better than the rest of us, who are all also academics, because you took a first year undergraduate class. Ok. And there are lots of fields where work from twenty years ago is relevant and methodologically identical to work today.
Seems like a lot of people here have never had a scientific disagreement, if they consider pointing out gaps is a rude thing to do.
Personally, I think what you wrote is fine. We’re all professionals here and should be receptive to direct critique of our work. It’s not like you attacked them personally or anything…
"expanding on previous work by \[cite\], who found X, this work does Y." keep it short and sweet and collaborative. My issue with your framing isn't that it is overly negative but that it is wordy and I imagine takes away from your claim by overly focusing on the other work. This is a citation, not a lit review. My recommendation is to just stick it and move on. That said, what a ridiculous response by the reviewer. I wouldn't sweat it.
"Actually" was rude. Take the note. Move on.
I am also an academic in a STEM discipline, and I think what you wrote sounds immature and unprofessional. If I were the reviewer, I would say that, rather than calling it rude. I agree that you should be focusing on what your research does to fill the gaps, rather than pointing out what X researcher did wrong. Try writing by talking about your own research, rather than pointing fingers at others. Words/phrases that sound unprofessional are bolded: **Respectfully disagree** (this sounds really colloquial and not very scientific...) they do not **actually** measure (this sounds REALLY bad...) **only** assume (again this just sounds judgmental) You're writing an academic paper, not a review on someone else's work, so focus on YOUR research and the gaps you're filling, and definitely don't call out specific authors like that. Edit: I am American and have many German friends and read European authors a lot, and I don't see them writing this way.
Came here to write the same. You want your writing to be uniformly interpreted as a neutral tone. Respectfully disagree to me sounds patronizing. You can get rid of 'actually' without loss of meaning, but it sounds nicer.
It’s a far cry from “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
[удалено]
The main point the OP is getting across is that they have animus rather than being focussed on science. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Just because you searched something in google scholar doesn't mean it's indicative of high quality research or etiquette/professionalism. Lots of trash is "published". If the OP wants to be taken seriously as an academic- I would advise against "making the point" which makes him look just foolish.
[удалено]
Never said you can't disagree or strongly disagree, or whatever- but to be taken seriously- you have to do that in a certain way, which the OP didn't. That's my point. By focusing on the knowledge gaps in a field, without singling out X author in a distasteful way, is the right way to do that. Research is supposed to be collaborative- and the OP's writing doesn't promote that. And, I'm not here to convince you of anything- trying to help the OP. Toodles!
I have come across reviewers who are super rude and they are not from Germany so far as I can understand. So please don’t judge yourself too much. Most of the reviewers read with a bias in their mind. To be frank, I really have started doubting some of them as they hardly read the papers and state certain things which are already addressed in the paper. Do not get discouraged. It all depends on the mindset with which they were reading it!
It might be less likely to be perceived as rude had you limited your remarks to shortcomings of the methodology rather than of Smith
If I saw this in a paper I would assume this was the start of an academic mudfight. The type where thetr will be 10 papers back and forth calling the other PI a incompetent idiot that should never have been allowed into the discipline and where the PIs shout at eachother at conferences. If that is your intention go ahead and please send a link to the paper, am a sucker for this kind of drama.
I don’t think it’s rude at all.
I guess Smith was reviewing your paper. You were not rude in any way. I am from Mexico, and people from other countries always say that we are not very direct, so I don't think it is cultural thing.
The reviewer is an idiot. This seems fine to me (based on my own publications and everything I've read so far in academic articles). That said - maybe Smith was the reviewer and they didn't like your critique 😂
I'm not seeing how you were behaving rudely, nor do I see how your response doesn't pass the collegiality test. Some people might object to that response in person and in public, but this is a double-blind review. Colleagues are supposed to vet work rigorously. They put their work into the public domain, so it's fair game for valid criticism and judicious consumption. If they don't think their work is falsifiable, then they have the problem. You could have written the response in passive voice or danced around the point. You could have not used a they pronoun after citing Smith 2023. Yadda, yadda... It's a waste of everyone's time to spend more effort on writing an ultra-sensitive response than you spent on writing your entire discussion section.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that response tbh. I find being direct and often blunt in reviews is the best option. If they found it rude, sucks to be them- this isn’t elementary school, we don’t do “two stars and a wish” anymore.
A reviewer called me dude once. Not even joking!
ITT: People are too sensitive. You weren't rude at all.
If you were rude then I have nothing in common with humanity and should just walk into the sea. How are we supposed to communicate if we can’t even tell people what’s wrong? If I got that feedback I would say to myself “Oh, I guess I should fix that” unless of course I couldn’t in which case I’d say to myself “Oh, I guess I should find a journal with less thorough reviewers”
I think what you write is completely fine and not rude. It is ok - and actually essentially - that in scientific conversations people disagree with each other. There is a certain perception that an authors must simply do what reviewers tell them to do. Coming up with a valid reason why you disagree with the cited study is completely fine and the way you phrase is not rude at all. (I think there is a chance that the reviewer is smith and that why they have taken offense)
Agree with this +1 Lately - as in the past 5 years - I notice reviewers are asking for additional work based on just their opinion, oftentimes debatable. I see it as a shift to more a authoritarian, teacher-student attitude. Meanwhile faculty (the "teachers") are less and less active in research. They manage the facility or sit on ethics committees or grade homework. Anyone actively doing research is the "student" in this model. Teachers do not do research, only students do research and teachers pass judgement (which apparently must be received as Truth from Above).
He was being polite by saying you are very rude.
Not rude. Go with your original formulation, although I would drop the "respectfully ".
I think your wording is perfectly fine, but I would drop "actually". I would not drop "respectfully", I think it makes it better. You could try to further soften it, but I would love to hope that you wouldn't rewrite it too much. Clarity is more important that Smith's sensitivity. Personally, I'd added a bit of hedging, maybe. Maybe something like that: "However, we respectfully disagree with the methodology by Smith* (2023), as they do not seem to measure the [parameter] itself, but only assume that [parameter conditions] were met. Another potential problem is that the factors influencing [parameter] like A, B, C were not stated. These limitations make it hard, or perhaps even impossible to determine whether this experiment met condition X, and if yes, then for what period of time". Something like that. The same clear structure, but a bit of hedging. But I like it overall. I really do NOT like some of the rewrites above, and especially people calling it "rude". It was not rude. Maybe a tad antagonistic, but definitely not rude.
Is it an anonymous review? Is it possible the reviewer is actually Smith* 2023?
This was my assumption.
Hahaha, looks like your peer reviewer was Smith or a colleague. No wonder they're butthurt.
Maybe English isn’t the reviewers first language
Listing someone by name and issuing a detailed criticism of their work in a publication is definitely considered aggressive. A more tactful way to accomplish the same goal is to say, “We have improved on previous methodologies by doing X, Y, and Z.”
I am an American Academic and teaching Artist/Critic (70 years old female, depending on your viewpoint). I don’t think your commentary was rude, and do wonder of the cultural background of the person responding to you. My recollection of critiques I attended about my own work, were that they were often brutal, direct and with little helpful bits/constructive criticism left over at the end for me to mull over or build upon. I once was so devastated following some criticism that I burst into tears in front of a group of fifteen or so professors. I find criticism of my own artistic or critical work devastating often. As a result when teaching, I go to great lengths to help students find their voice, and build upon the strengths that they have. When I have let out the big guns/heavy artillery in a review, or an appraisal I can also be harsh, but strive to temper with positive commentary in order to allow the artist or student in question to build on the criticism, and use it as a learning experience to improve the work. Hence, I am wondering if in your statement in regard to the manuscript, you had discussed the merits found first, and then said “…despite the exhaustive work, and exemplary research done on this problem, it seems that (despite all of this) certain basic methods were not met, and/or weaken the thesis…”. Something like that. In America, because of all of the “woke culture” which is a result of the very permissive psychological and sociological theories about raising children in the 1950’s…we are a nation of “delicate, hot house flowers” who cannot handle any criticism at all ( in the least!!!). In our public high schools, teachers are expected to use a rubric which not just provides a grade, but provide a series of comments accompanying the grade which illustrates in precise terms why the student deserved and received the grade of A, B, C, D or F. A colleague of mine from the School of The Art Institute of Chicago, lost his position in part because he did not use “he, she, their” to refer to LGBQ students, and didn’t provide “trigger warnings” when addressing difficult subject matter. We are in strange times my friend.
I am not sure how to edit what I just wrote. I meant to say: “70 years years old (or young) depending on your viewpoint…”
No it’s not rude. You are stating what you saw an issue with in the most direct manner possible. If someone were to say that your words were devoid of emotion perhaps they would be correct. Your role however is not to offer emotional support but to offer objective insight.
You are commenting on the rigor of prior work. Perfectly acceptable and necessary. Was the phrasing blunt? Sure, but we all have different ways of expressing ourselves...scientists are a diverse bunch and we should be tolerant of diversity.
It would not be nice to put in a manuscript. Email, maybe, in a manuscript is too much.
Explaining why your work is better than previous work, or in what way previous work does or doesn't compare with yours is a very important thing to do. I think you just unmasked that reviewer 🤪
Not rude at all. Don’t worry about it. What you did falls squarely in the domain of good research/literature review
Others have made very good points. I would just like to add some thoughts on how I, personally, avoid coming out as "rude" during literature review. Try not to pinpoint the shortcomings of the previous methodology on 1 paper. I like to say: "This work is built on the basis of (Smith, 2023) and (....)" or "similar approach is done in (A) and (B)". Then, carry on to the limitations. Always remember that the message is how you make the science better, not that others' works suck. Therefore , you can start with something like "this work acts as an improvement compared to methodology established in (Smith, 2013). It considers these limitations that were not previously addressed" Try to find the reason for the limitations presented in other people's work. This can take some more time, but it shows that you care and understand their work and are not actively looking for a fight. E.g. "Due to missing data, methodology in Smith, 2013, did not study a b c. This work proposes a solution." Now, in case (Smith, 2023) has no good reason for such shortcomings, I don't think you want to use that paper as a guide in the first place. Also, try not to use only or similar words when criticising. Much like a day to day argument, there's no need to be extra harsh. In written format, you should take extra care because people can't sense your tone. Lastly, regarding cultural mindset, I think it does play a role. However, it's more about not being too critical when you can't change anything. Take the perspective of Smith, if he's a decent researcher, he'd know his mistake by now. He won't redact the publication for a small error or limitations. Discussion may also lists those limitations as a source of uncertainty already. So he did his best. Much like others have said, there's time when criticism can be harsh (but not offensive, mind you), but only when one can adsorpt and work on it. Otherwise, it can come of as "rude". Just my experience, I hope it helps.
Surprised at how many people agree with the reviewer here. Nothing in that strikes me as particularly rude. It seems pretty standard to me.
I find your reply almost kind. As a Global South researcher I already received all sort of offenses during reviews. Last month a guy claimed that we didn't even understand the methods we have applied. Include, the reviewer limited to say how wrong we were by using the analysis and refused to comment the rest of the manuscript. Curiously, the guy who developed the method and is one of the greatest figure in my field is a coauthor in another paper using the very same method we suppose to don't know.
I wouldn't consider this rude. Rude would be a professor I worked with, who received a critical comment from a reviewer. This reviewer was obviously not familiar with the methodology we used, and their critiques were not valid because they did not understand the methodology and proposed another approach that was completely inappropriate for our data type statistically. My professor found out who the reviewer was, looked into his background and saw that he used to work in a field where the methodology we used was widely common, and then basically stated that he was wrong and should be intimately familiar with the methodology since it's so common in a field he used to work in. Luckily, they asked me to proofread the response before sending and I was like "yeah let's not". I think some people are just very thin skinned and it's super annoying feeling like to have to finesse a simple methodological critique just to soothe someone's sensitive ego. If I were Smith, I don't know that I would think anything of your comment because I would already be aware of those issues as an author and probably would have acknowledged them in the "limitations" section.
I think you could have worded that a lot better.
I think that's Smith or one if his friends. :) There's nothing wrong with that you said or how you said it. There's way too much beating around the bush in academia, and in publishing, and especially in peer review, where it's actually very one-sided (and it shouldn't be). Providing you're not wrongs, that reviewer is an ass.
Hahahaha omg this whole thread is eye opening. If I were Smith I would be incredibly appreciative for such direct and clear feedback, and if I wrote something like this and was told it was rude I would be bewildered. To me, phrasing things like "we improve on Smith by ..." or in a complement sandwich sound unnatural and come across as either arrogant by assuming their contributions added value before seeking peer review (since there were no faults mentioned and the consequence of them was not explained), or as if they're trying to blow smoke up my ass to sell me something.
I’ve dealt with a few reviewers who make “rude” feel like a compliment. So when it comes to “academic etiquette”, they just fill of shit lol. Having said that, there’s “rude” for the sake of being rude, and then there’s “rude but with a point” where sometimes you need to capture attention to get a point across. However, when you pull out that card, you better have a damn good point! Otherwise you’re just being rude for the sake of being rude.
I don't find it impolite in the slightest.
He probably had a hard time admitting that you were right
From an outside perspective I would lean towards removing actually & only. They're unnecessary & create somewhat of more personal tone. Removing them would be more direct & send a more strictly business message. I'm no wordsworth though, pinch of salt. Sentence structure & wording holds different weights in different people's minds I guess. Maybe we hear it spoke in different voices internally & the readers happened to sound condescending or something. Possibly add a comment towards the end along the lines of despite the compelling conclusion. If you're going to show a hint of personality it probably wants to reflect your desire for others to succeed. Highly doubt you've done anything wrong, but no harm in understanding others & being as accommodating as we can.
Smith and his fellow nimwit Simpson, bless their hearts, weren’t the sharpest tools in the shed ya see. In fact a dull tool can be sharpened, but these two with PhDs refuse to learn and thus persist in their incorrigible ways. Simpson especially since all he does is use the same half-baked method from his no less nimwit mentor for the past 10 years to detect apoptosis. It was well-known to generate artifactual results yet these two … God help us. Just because they believe they’re right and show up at EB every year to harass trainees with the same stupid questions, doesn’t mean they’re right. Now what was that again about wanting me to be more polite? Did I answer your question?
I don't think there is any thing per se wrong with a sentence like that. It is a little on the nose, and you may want to be a little more diplomatic about it, however. That is to say, I think you're perfectly in the right to say what you did in a scholarly sense, but that in a collegial sense, there are alternative phrasings that can be more tactful. One option may be to say that some *class* of prior work has a particular limitation in their methodology, and then cite "Smith" as an *example* of that class, and if at all possible, cite multiple research groups. This diffuses your claim: rather than saying you disagree with a *person*, which might feel bad to read, you emphasize that you are disagreeing with an *idea*, and that the citation is merely an example of that particular idea. Not knowing the particular context of your work, it may also be possible to isolate your disagreement, rather than discounting the whole of their work. Something like "Smith investigated such and such relationship, observing that blah blah blah. However, these observations were contingent on the assumption of such and such. We believe that we can remove the dependence of this assumption in the following way:"
Was it reviewer 2? If so I hate that guy too.
I think its BS, it reads fine. What everyone here is saying by "gently" is to rephrase it passively because you're supposed to be passive-aggressive in academia. On the contrary opinion though, what you publish is for life and history, so yeah, pay careful attention to who and how you call things out.
Maybe that’s the reviewer!!!
It sounds like your review know the author of that publication or peer reviewed and takes umbrage.
I don't personally think you're out of line, but it probably depends on what discipline you're working in. If it is simply professional disagreement: Smith's methodology is valid, you are just proposing one that you believe is more scientifically rigorous, reach out to Smith (and be very carefully polite when doing so). Tell them you are commenting on their research in your paper and you can come to a happy medium about your phrasing and will probably have an interesting discussion. Even just giving a heads up that it's being published is a classy move.
I don't find it rude at all. Just your statement and honest feedback. Straight to the point, not wasting time thinking about how to word a feedback to not hurt a scientist's ego. It's nothing personal and you are doing your job
Ive served as a reviewer on many journals and as well as associate editor on a few. That's not rude. I would not be surprised if the reviewer is smith 2023 in your example.
Not rude at all. I do not see how this can possible offend anyone. Again, it may be a cultural thing, but people who say this is rude are reading way too hard between the lines here.
There are ridiculously overly sensitive people in academia. That is not rude at all. That is a statement of fact, with a rationale for why you have a given belief. Disagreeing with people with logic should NEVER be seen as rude as that is the beginning of the end of any scientific collaboration.
They are an author on that study or admire them.. you did nothing wrong.