Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
CMAJ. 2009 Dec 8;181(12):E301-5. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.091164. Epub 2009 Dec 7.
Authors are inundated with feedback from peer reviewers. Although this feedback is usually helpful, it can also be incomprehensible, rude or plain silly. Inspired by Al Jaffe's classic comic from Mad Magazine, we sought to develop an evidenced-based framework for providing "snappy answers to stupid questions," in the hope of aiding emerging academics in responding appropriately to feedback from peer review.
We solicited, categorized and analyzed examples of silly feedback from peer reviewers using the grounded theory qualitative research paradigm from 50 key informants. The informants represented 15 different professions, 33 institutions and 11 countries (i.e., Australia, Barbados, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA).
We developed a Scale of Silliness (SOS) and a Scale of Belligerence (SOB) to facilitate the assessment of inadequate peer-review feedback and guide users in preparing suitable responses to it. The SOB score is tempered by users' current mood, as captured by the Mood Reflective Index (MRI), and dictates the Appropriate Degree of Response (ADR) for the particular situation.
Designed using the highest quality of (most easily accessible anecdotal) evidence available, this framework may fill a significant gap in the research literature by helping emerging academics respond to silly feedback from peer reviewers. Although use of the framework to its full extent may have negative consequences (e.g., loss of promotion), its therapeutic value cannot be understated.
作者经常收到同行评审者的反馈。虽然这些反馈通常很有帮助，但也可能令人费解、粗鲁或愚蠢。受 Al Jaffe 经典漫画的启发，我们试图制定一个基于证据的框架，提供“对愚蠢问题的机智回答”，希望帮助新兴学者对同行评审的反馈做出适当的回应。
我们使用扎根理论定性研究范式，从 50 名关键知情者那里征集、分类和分析了同行评审者的愚蠢反馈示例。这些知情人代表了 15 个不同的职业、33 个机构和 11 个国家（即澳大利亚、巴巴多斯、加拿大、德国、日本、新西兰、南非、瑞典、瑞士、英国和美国）。
我们开发了一个愚蠢程度量表（SOS）和一个好斗程度量表（SOB），以方便评估不充分的同行评审反馈，并指导用户准备适当的回应。SOB 得分受到用户当前情绪的影响，由情绪反射指数（MRI）捕捉，并决定了针对特定情况的适当回应程度（ADR）。
该框架采用了现有最高质量的（最容易获取的轶事）证据设计，可能通过帮助新兴学者对同行评审者的愚蠢反馈做出回应，填补研究文献中的一个重大空白。尽管充分利用该框架可能会产生负面影响（例如，晋升机会的丧失），但其治疗价值不容忽视。
