Well, I’m glad that’s sorted! – I’m reassured and will have a look…
Thanks all,
cheers
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of penman.t@xxxxxxxxx Gmail
Sent: 04 December 2018 10:11
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Peer-Review Process
Thank you for the feedback. Etiquette noted. In some cases, I prefer to keep my messages short and sweet, especially since I know people on this listserv have limited time. The smaller the word count, the more likely it will be read. Also,
it is worth noting that I rarely post to this listserv and thought that a moderator (a human, not a bot) approved messages to ensure they were safe. Apologies this appeared as spam.
Allow me to reword if I may. Here is my revision with major edits for the original email I sent a couple hours ago.
* * * * * Revision with MAJOR edits * * * * *
Dear Members of the McGill Auditory Listserv,
I am writing to see how long you spend reviewing a peer-reviewed manuscript. If you feel inclined to respond to this anonymous survey, please Click
here. This survey link is not spam. If you hover over the hyperlink, you can see it directs to a SurveyMonkey hyperlink. If you do not feel inclined to respond to this anonymous survey, no need to click the link.
This question was inspired because I was onboarding a new member to my Editorial Board and wanted to provide that member with an expectation for how long each review should take. The quantity of words or the length of time we spend is relative.
However, when inviting (persuading) a new editorial board member to volunteer in this capacity, it is my ethical duty as Editor to provide them an expectation about how many hours they would be expected to volunteer. This is particularly true for new reviewers
who are familiar with research, but less familiar with the intricacies and politics of the peer-review process. By letting new reviewers know how much time (on average) should be spent on a manuscript, in addition to why it takes that amount of time, the scientific
rigor of the peer-review process is preserved.
Of course there are many factors that can influence the length of time spent reviewing a manuscript, but I asked myself, “On average, can the length of time be categorized?” Therefore, I decided to crowdsource this question by inviting
my inclusive, supportive, and collaborative colleagues to take this very brief, two-question survey on SurveyMonkey.
This question appears to have piqued subscriber interest. Within the first hour of this message being approved, five colleagues asked me to share results. One colleague suggested results be shared with everyone. If there is no objection,
I will share results with the list in approximately 1-2 weeks. Many of you may be curious about the results, as this topic is rarely discussed in public forum. Perhaps due to fear of judgement or criticism from colleagues, especially if it’s perceived that
a reviewer is spending less (or perhaps even more) time than the social norm. Because this survey is anonymous, it is my hope that respondents provide honest answers.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
* * * * * End Revision * * * * *
Elif, I presented this message in a way that is reflective, playful, and genuine. If you were a reviewer for my revision above, what do you think? Accept? Major edits? Minor? Reject? Even though I’m quiet on this listserv, I value being
a part of this group and wish to avoid the label of lacking email etiquette. I warmly welcome your feedback. Thanks again for the comment.
Dear Tina,
I agree with Peter - your email looked very suspicious and our of place with few keywords to ‘lure’ scientists. Also because you didn’t address anyone and state the relevance of the content of your message to us. Surely there is an etiquette
to sending emails to a list.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Sound-Driven Design & Research
------------------------------------------------------
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
Delft University of Technology
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Intensive Care
------------------------------------------------------
m +31 6 30055768
------------------------------------------------------
It’s not spam. The link takes you to two questions on SurveyMonkey.
To my surprise, I have received five requests in just the past hour to share the results. One person noted the results should be shared with everyone on this listserv because
everyone is likely curious. If there is no objection, I’ll let this survey run for 1-2 weeks, and then I’ll loop back to the whole group with findings.
Just checking that this is not spam (or worse) before I click on anything…?
Senior Lecturer in Perception
College of Arts, Humanities and Education
University of Derby,
Kedleston Road,
Derby,
DE22 1GB, UK
You accept an invitation to review a manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal. How long do you spend writing your review? Click
here.
Email me if you're interested in the results.
The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the sender and let them know.
Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the sender and let them know.
Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
|