Handling a rude author as a reviewer?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Reviewers ethics. Is it OK to recommend “reject” because the author is rude? I recently reviewed a paper and recommended “reject.” However, the editor chose R&R and I got the author's revised paper and their responses to my comments. I think the paper still sucks big time, so I would re-iterate my “reject” anyway, but… I gave a lot of unvarnished-but-not-uncharitable comments on the paper. In the authors response, they make a lot of remarks that I can’t read as other than rude, e.g. “It seems that reviewer 1 has utterly failed to grasp my point… Thanks for this strange suggestion, but no…..Wow thanks a lot for this wider remark, I’ll save that topic for my next book”.

When I’m dealing with students I don’t really get upset by rudeness/tactlessness, but I still react negatively, so that they learn how is appropriate to interact with professors, etc. Is that appropriate here?, to recommend reject and leave a note along the lines of “You should remember who is doing who a favor here and be more polite, my friend.”

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. Personally, I don't think one should reject an author's paper because they are rude. After all, an author might be rude while their paper is excellent, and our task as reviewers is to evaluate the work submitted. But, of course, in this case the OP notes that they arrived at a negative evaluation of the paper anyway, so the above case is neither here nor there in this case.

It's another question, I think, whether a reviewer should comment on an author's rudeness in their reviewer report. Here, I'm note sure. But here's a thought: most journals allow authors to submit a review to forward to the author, but also private comments for the editors only. One option here is to indicate in one's comments to the editors that the author was out of line, and to request that they say something to the author. Then again, if an author is really out of line, then maybe it does make sense to say something in one's review to them.

What do you all think?

Comments

[anon]

"Is it OK to recommend “reject” because the author is rude?"

Absolutely not, it's the merits of the paper that should matter.

"When I’m dealing with students I don’t really get upset by rudeness/tactlessness, but I still react negatively, so that they learn how is appropriate to interact with professors, etc. Is that appropriate here?, to recommend reject and leave a note along the lines of “You should remember who is doing who a favor here and be more polite, my friend.” "

I also think this is the wrong way to think about the author-referee relationship. You're not a mentor who's supposed to train them to be polite, or anything else. You're just there to write a review of the paper.

I think that Marcus makes a good suggestion about how if anyone should say something here, it would be an editor.

[etiquette as a system of hypothetical imperatives]

If the fact that the author is being rude is evidence that they don't realize there is a strong norm against doing so (or even that it's likely to be badly counterproductive), part of me thinks someone needs to tell them, not just the editor! If they think this is a generally accepted practice, that's a bad mistake that should get corrected asap.

[Richard Yetter Chappell]

I agree with others that (i) the paper should be assessed purely on its merits, and (ii) the editor is best-placed to let the author know that rude responses are both inappropriate and imprudent (making it less likely that reviewers will find their responses convincing). So I think the best response is for the reviewer to simply flag this to the editor's attention.

A minor aside, re: "who is doing who a favor here," I don't think referees are generally doing favors for authors. Sometimes their comments are helpful, but as has been discussed in previous threads, this is largely incidental to *helping the editors* come to a decision.

It's not necessarily unreasonable for an author to (privately) view a hostile-seeming reviewer somewhat antagonistically. (You are preventing their paper from being published, after all, and for reasons the author clearly isn't much impressed by.) But I think the important point is just that it isn't helpful (for anyone, including the author themselves) for this antagonism to seep into their formal response to the reviewers.

[Mr or Mrs manners]

Polite Reviewer
You certainly have the right to say that you will never review that paper again. I have had R&Rs sent to me, and they have given NO indication that they have engaged with my comments in the referee's report. In those cases I just contact the editor and say I cannot review the paper - even after agreeing to do it.

[R]

As someone who has received my fair share of reviews where the reviewer found my project completely misguided and expressed this in various ways along the rudeness spectrum, I can sympathize with some degree of exasperation in the tone of the author's response (though I agree with other commenters that it's best to avoid expressing that exasperation where the reviewer might see it). Makes me wonder whether OP lived up to their intent of "unvarnished-but-not-uncharitable comments" here. Obviously I have no independent way of judging this, so I'm not accusing OP of anything. Just trying to offer an alternative perspective for OP to consider.

[Disappointed]

Sorry to be judgy and a bit rude here, but this exchange (including the reaction) reflects poorly on both the author and the reviewer...

The tone of the author may be due to that they do not know that it's imprudent, or that they do know but don't care. I think the chance of the former is slim, given the professional stage of the author ("my next book").

I think if the reviewer is upset then it is totally fine to decline further reviewing. But teaching a lesson may not be necessary.

[yea, yea]

Agree with R. The system of anonymity has major flaws, not least of which is the all too frequent behavior (and tone) of reviewers: Hasty dismissal, uncharitable reading, condescending tone, irrational hostility for purely ideology reasons etc.
In such a context, I would even say that treating such reviewers with respect is enabling them.

[Yes, but]

The author is behaving badly and it would not be uncommon to punish them for this. It sounds like you are going to reject the paper anyways.

However, the editor's decision to override your initial recommendation combined with the author's tone suggests that there may be some truth to the author's complaints. Please do take a moment to make sure that you are providing relevant suggestions based on a good understanding of the paper.

[Machiavelli]

One thing that might help make sense of this: if you have a negative reviewer whom you have no chance of convincing, what you need to do is convince the editor that the reviewer is too stupid/lazy/biased/whatever to have competently reviewed your paper (which of course sometimes is indeed the case). And the fact that the editor gave an r&r despite a negative review suggests they are open to the possibility. So even if the remarks here are literally addressed to the reviewer, they're probably better understood as attempts to display the reviewer's incompetence to the editor.

Whether (and how much) rudeness is effective in this is of course a different question.

And if you are the reviewer in this situation and want the paper to be rejected, whether for the good of the philosophical community or out of wounded pride, you should convince the editor that your evaluation was fair and competent. Bringing up or otherwise showing a reaction to the rudeness likely detracts from this goal. Probably also best to stick to some of the main original complaints, rather than coming up with all sorts of new ones.

[Charged Positively]

It sounds like a spat has developed between you and the author. Regardless of who initiated it, I would explain to the editor that I shall be unable to provide an impartial review.

I would also recheck what "unvarnished" means. I see reviewing as primarily about helping others to improve and that requires a reasonably positive tone, just like marking a student's essay. Even when a student has put almost no effort into an essay and written something with no notable virtues whatsoever, I might put less effort into making suggestions, but I'll still express positive and encouraging ways they might realistically improve if they want.

I also think that finding SOMETHING good in an essay or submitted paper, when possible, is a really useful skill to develop. A reading group with a constructive ambience and attitudes can be a good way to develop it.

[anon]

I think going the punitive route in this case, and in general, is a big mistake. No one EVER learns a skill about anything by being punished for not performing the skill in question. If you want your students to relate to you in a 'proper' manner, or write good essays, or whatever, then teach them the skills they need to do these things well. That's your job. Don't assume the worst in them and then punish them by reacting negatively when they don't meet your expectations. That's poor leadership in my mind.

In this case, by recommending reject and leaving the note to the editor, how do you think the author is going to respond? Do you really think they're going to be appreciative towards you and sit down and do some thoughtful soul-searching? Will it really have the result you want? No, the author will be pissed and out for revenge. It will likely make them bitter and resentful both towards you and future referees. Punishments simply don't work. Take a more empowering/uplifting approach.

[Prof L]

I've gotten comments along the lines of "look, I'm helping you and you are not accepting my help" from referees whose advice was very off the mark (IMO). I always found this a little odd --- yes, you have put in time and thought, but that doesn't make you infallible, also, **I am not your student**. I am another professional, and if you don't like my paper, **reject it**.

Perhaps the author suffers from a lack of mentorship, and this kind of reaction smacks of youth, but really, who knows what career stage they are in? The whole dynamic here also suggests that the reviewer misunderstands their role---you are not mentor to this other person, neither is the editor. Let assholes be assholes, and move on. This attitude will not serve the author well, but it is no one's job to fix them.