Over the years I have received plenty of comments on my papers by reviewers. In many cases I also get to see the comments of other reviewers in papers I review myself. The past year I have also been doing a bit of editing work for a journal so I have an additional pool of reviewer comments to look at and ponder upon. At some point I noticed that there is some pattern in their comments and when I analyzed the large sample pool I had, I realized I could categorize reviewers based on the comments they give. It also happens that I am a major Harry Potter geek so I entertained myself by assigning a character from the Harry Potter books to each reviewer type.
For those of you who are new to the “publish your paper” game, I outline below the reviewer categories I have invented in order of increasing nastiness in the hope to prepare you for the future. For those who already have some experience, I hope you find this entertaining (and NOT yourselves in some of the nastiest categories).
Enjoy!
Professor McGonagal or The fair one
This is obviously the least nasty one and is on top of this list but is also the rarest one. The fair reviewer will read your whole manuscript carefully and critically and give you genuine and useful feedback. They might occasionally come off as tough but they will see your work for what it is and not what it could be and they will ask for experiments only if it is truly necessary. If you do get this reviewer first pinch yourself. If you don’t wake up, then it’s not a dream. Make sure you answer every question of this reviewer deeply respectfully and seriously consider their input because they’ve actually done the work properly. Beware of Prof. McGonagal’s exquisite talent for bullshit detection. If the experimental evidence you want to use to address her concerns isn’t pristine better keep it to yourself. And congratulations, you got the unicorn of the reviewers!
Percy Weasley or The neutral one
This reviewer doesn’t have strong feelings about your work. They won’t reflect on the relevance or novelty of your findings but stick to the facts you are stating in your draft. They might seem quite gullible when it comes to your scientific premise just like Percy was when it came to ministry of magic directions. They will give some generic comments on your work and ask for a few to no experiments at all. Beware of Percy’s sharp eye, though! This reviewer will notice the typos in the axis of your graphs and the fact that although you have noted 2 stars of significance, you should be using only one star based on your figure legend. This reviewer is most likely an overworked post doc who has corrected so many theses and paper drafts that has developed what I call the typo-detecting superpower. The fact that this person is overworked means that they will most likely say yes to any response you write to their comments and proceed with accepting your manuscript. If you have even one “neutral” reviewer on your panel, consider yourself lucky because, although you might want to slap the Harry Potter character in the face, Percy as a reviewer is as mellow as they come.
Ronald Weasley or The hasty reader
It’s really a coin toss with this type. You will either get one who will give comments that you can easily address without doing any experiments, or they will miss so much of the info already in your manuscript that they will ask for numerous experiments and controls you have already provided. In the first case you are golden. In the latter case you will end up with a bunch of questions that are silly but you still need to address and a super suspicious editor who now thinks you need a major revision. You will know you got Ron because they will copy and paste the last paragraph of your introduction to the beginning of their comments.
Neville Longbottom or The inexperienced but eager one
Most likely a PhD student or a junior post doc who got landed with a paper to review for the first time. Neville can be both good and bad for you and in this case it’s purely a matter of luck. The inexperienced reviewer will pour over your paper for 3-4 business days. Will check most of your citations to make sure they are correct and check your supplemental material like there’s no tomorrow. The result is an embarrassing 15 page long document that makes you awkwardly self-aware of the fact that you got a couple of citations wrong and that you should spell-check more thoroughly before submitting. Most likely however, Neville won’t cause you much trouble as he won’t spot any logical gaps or dodgy controls in your study.
Professor Lockheart or The “I am at the wrong place” type
This is an umbrella reviewer type because the fact that they have found themselves in the wrong place can translate into various outcomes. For instance, this type can ask you for experiments that would add nothing at all to your study or that cannot be performed with your model in any way. This can be quite awkward because responding to Prof. Lockheart’s comments might sound like you don’t want to do any work. This umbrella type might also include the more vanity-flavored reviewer who thinks (or wishes) they are reviewing for a higher impact journal. This specific subtype will ask you for a ton of experiments that can be probably done in your model and are interesting but belong to an entirely separate paper. The Lockheart type may also include the reviewer whose comments make you believe this person is not even a scientist. It really depends on which subtype you get but you will need to come up with some experiments that will soothe them and present them as if that’s what they were suggesting all along. Whatever you do, Prof. Lockheart needs to know he matters.
Professor Alastor Moody (when he was actually Barty Crouch Jr.) or The cut-to-the-chase one
This reviewer is bad news. They will only glance at your figures and the headlines of your results section but read the ever loving crap out of your discussion. Their review will consist of a) an unnecessary and bit silly comment on one of your panels that reads as if they were obliged to leave one so that you know they looked at places other than the discussion and b) a very unsettling and demeaning comment regarding the relevance and/or novelty of your findings and/or the appropriateness of your experimental model. You will be able to know you have Prof. Moody as a reviewer because when you read their comments it will remind you of one of your daymares during which you sink into self-loathing and pity thinking your work is derivative and stupid.
Be extra careful when you respond to their comments (if the editor hasn’t rejected you already because of them) by making sure you stroke their ego and accepting their opinion without resisting much. If they haven’t already asked for one, offer to perform an experiment to address their concerns. In a nutshell, deal with it like ancient peoples dealt with animal sacrifice to please the gods.
Professor Severus Snape or The nothing will ever be good enough type
We are not talking about the Snape who saved Harry Potter and the world from Lord Voldemort. No. We are talking about the bitter, nasty, child-hating, pure-blood-loving Snape of books 1 through 7 (but for the last couple of chapters). This is the nastiest reviewer you can get. If paper publishing were a video game, this reviewer would be the big boss. Although they sound rare, they, unfortunately, are not. It is very well possible you will encounter this type more frequently than you want. This reviewer will unabashedly throw crap on your premise, your experiments, your conclusions, the quality of your data and even the entire field of study if they can. You may have all the love and respect in the world for your reviewers but whoever you are I guarantee you, this reviewer will make you type out responses that will need 4 passes to make them sound less aggressive and remove some of the swear words you typed as a personal dare. It is perfectly normal, we have all been there. Keep calm, remain professional and address Snape’s comments with pure logic and your shiniest arguments. You may still fail, but there’s nothing much you can do about this reviewer…
This is definitely not a comprehensive list, but I think it covers the basic reviewer types based on my experience. Which Harry Potter character are you, based on your reviewing style?
One Response
That was fun to read! I’m definitely Professor McGonagal, I always try to be useful to my students and fair, and my bullshit detection skills are known in their circles, so I have been told. Now, only if I can learn how to turn into a cat…