[ATTW-L] [External] Ethical Question about TC Peer Review

[George Hayhoe]

In replying yesterday, I accidentally responded only to Mike and not to the list.

I’ve served as editor-in-chief of two of the major journals in the field (Technical Communication and IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication). Both of these journals employ double-anonymous reviewing, as do the vast majority of academic journals.

Mike didn't explain why he thought his reviewing practice is unfair to authors. Indeed, the rationale behind its adoption in the first place, as I understand it, was to protect those who are building professional reputations from the bias of the “old guard” who might not be familiar with their prior work, if any. In other words, it allows all researchers to start for an equal footing, whether they are full professors or graduate students.

Similarly, from the reviewer’s perspective, it allows a variety of reviewer points of view to enter the marketplace of ideas, not just a “house point of view.” Depending on the manuscript topic, I’ve always tried to seek out a range of reviewers and viewpoints, from experienced academics to grad students, as well as research-savvy practitioners. The results aren’t always ideal, but I’ve been generally very pleased with the seriousness with which my colleagues have approached the task, and authors have been generous with their praise of the process and the feedback that they have received.

Both Joanna and Mary make excellent points in their responses, by the way, as does Joseph below.

—George Hayhoe


Professor emeritus, Mercer University School of Engineering
Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Life Fellow, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Fellow, Society for Technical Communication

hayhoe_g at mercer.edu

+1 828 318 9684


[unknown.jpg]

On Jan 4, 2024, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Robertshaw <jwr0015 at uah.edu> wrote:

Mike,

This is a very interesting question and I find myself looking up at it from a different perspective. While I have not yet been on the tenure earning track I still want to review and publish for many reasons. Two of those reasons that stand out to me at this moment are the desire to contribute to the body of knowledge of the field and the waning hope that, with publications, one day I too will find a TT position.

As for the former, I am persuaded that writing and reviewing as a service to the field is not only a duty but also an expression of my identity as an academic. In that practice I have also wondered how so few people can control the flow of information that contributes to knowledge for so many which brings me to my point. I have not been able to determine in many cases when resistance through subversion is anarchist and machiavellian or when it is simply a marxist or feminist duty to dismantle the structures of power engendering a new normal. I guess I have to weigh my own motivations carefully in moments like those to see if the subversive actions are in the service of self and personal views or if they would be an effective tool in service of a larger ideology.  Which brings me to the latter point.

If I help to subvert and destroy the ladder I hope to climb, is there another road to my desired destination? Looking around at the assault on tenure, post tenure review, and the wholesale deletion or usurpation of entire programs, departments, and universities (thinking of Wyoming, WVU, Florida, Harvard, and now Youngstown State among other cases)  that cause trouble for those in positions of political power, tearing down the structures that exist now may be a moot point. It hardly seems like a time that we should work to weaken any academic structure in any way. Unless we have a better way already prepared to take over when the old system--and its affordances and limitations--are gone, why would we subvert the things that are supposed to protect us, our rights and academic integrity? I think of the recent CWPA shift toward a more public position of antiracism and the concerted efforts that brought about that introspection, leading to positive change, and I compare that to one person protesting. I have often found myself in the position of the only voice of opposition and as such have had to do a fair bit of soul searching. Sometimes I continue the protest and try to gain support or raise awareness, sometimes I have had to fall back and regroup employing new strategies to continue to work toward change because sometimes there is a better way. But other times, I have discovered that the thing I was doing was a losing proposition in a failed cause and have had to abandon it.

Obviously I can't say do X and everything is fine, but I can share what my NTT experience has taught me. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves questions we don't like but that is only because no one else has those answers for our contexts. Perhaps accountability is covered within the reviewer's accountability to the editor. Perhaps we need more people of integrity to step up to take on editorial roles. Perhaps we need more of those same people to take on Department Chair positions and Deanships so they can help create space in the labor demands of the typical university to allow the various academic disciplines exercise their academic freedom and strengthen their own integrity through self regulation and collective inquiry. Perhaps there is another, more better solution I am not privy to. Perhaps none of this makes sense to anyone but me. But that might just be my perspective from the NTT space I occupy, as I peer in and see the ways that publishing, freedom, status, security, politics, and labor are inextricably interconnected in that one act of subverting the double blind peer review architecture. The question is raised for me: Is double blind peer review a liberating structure or a hegemonic assemblage?

Even if these thoughts offer you no assistance, I want to thank you for the opportunity to think about this out loud with you.
Best,
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xyh-IxB4JhLCrtIfjpCpFWBlUMP9mOXgyGa3_aordUYBWU8S8b8zU3WZDkdhv9D3UEftLbKwc]
Joseph W. Robertshaw, Ph.D. (he/him)
Lecturer, The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Room 271 Morton Hall


On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 11:56 AM Duncan, Michael <duncanm at uhd.edu<mailto:duncanm at uhd.edu>> wrote:

I have an ethical question about TC peer review for this listserv.

I recently completed a peer review for a journal in the TC orbit, to remain unnamed. As usual, I requested that my name be included in the review. I have done this for every peer review I’ve written since 2015. It’s an ethical issue that I’ve written about twice, once in the Chronicle and another in a journal article. I don’t feel comfortable hiding behind anonymity. I’ve never had an editor object in the past, though it’s possible that some editor has left my name off a review without telling me. But this is the first time that I know for certain that it’s happened, and without the editor asking me if it was ok. I received a copy of the peer reviews after the publication decision, plus an email asking me not to sign reviews. My response to the editor was to note my name was removed without consent, that I would decline to review further for the journal, and if I had been asked to remove my name prior to it being sent out, I would have withdrawn the entire review. The editor made a perfunctory apology but did nothing otherwise.

The milk is spilled, yes, but here’s the ethical question. I anticipated something like this happening some years ago, but not the exact scenario. I started to leave a unique phrase in my peer reviews, different each time. If the text of the peer review itself constitutes a kind of private key, the phrase is a public key that would allow anyone with access to the peer review to know who I am, without me knowing who they are. For example, if I announced somewhere that the public key for a recent peer review was “timey-wimey epistemological handwringing,” if you saw that in a peer review that you’d received, you’d know I’d wrote it (please note that is not the actual key and exists solely for dramatic purposes).

So, would it be ethical for me to publish that phrase online? On the negative side, it would violate double blind (assuming the author received the key and figured it out, of course). And, of course, peer-reviewed journals are granted by their respective fields, at least informally, rather broad discretionary powers over their editorial processes with which meddling is generally frowned upon – although, I feel that balance of power tends to favor those that already have power, which is why I sign, so people can know what ratfink wrote that review. On the positive side, the review is completed as actually written, given that I expressly wrote the review with the understanding it would be single-blind. I can be held accountable for any incompetence, the editor’s misstep is answered in kind, and perhaps the author could confirm, at least, that their peer reviews was not written by an enterprising chatbot. Personal ethics vs. professional ethics? Virtue vs. duty?

My current thinking is that the benefits of correcting a wrong outweigh the sidestepping of a custom. However, it could be argued that I have already corrected the wrong by walking away from the journal. I am amendable.

Mike Duncan, Ph.D. (he/his/him)
Professor of English
University of Houston-Downtown
Managing Editor, Technical Communication & Social Justice

_______________________________________________
ATTW-L mailing list
ATTW-L at attw.org<mailto:ATTW-L at attw.org>
http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org
_______________________________________________
ATTW-L mailing list
ATTW-L at attw.org
http://attw.org/mailman/listinfo/attw-l_attw.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20240104/ca4ef6b5/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: unknown.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 45513 bytes
Desc: unknown.jpg
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20240104/ca4ef6b5/attachment-0002.jpg>