To the editor:
Thank you for the
opportunity to have our manuscript “Differential Response of Barrier Island
Dune Grasses to Species Interactions and Burial” reviewed at AoB Plants.
Although the outcome was not favorable, I understand and accept the reasons
provided by the Associate Editor to reject the manuscript without consideration
of resubmission. However, I am writing to provide feedback on my extreme
disappointment with the review provided by referee #2. I find the review to be
unprofessional and written by someone still in the dark ages of science. I am
able to glean useful information regarding the clarity of the manuscript;
however, review #2 is written by someone that could find nothing positive about
the paper, which I find difficult to accept given the completely contradictory
review by referee #1.
I am familiar with
reviews that at least summarize the overall objectives of the paper. It is not
clear from the review that the referee understood the objectives of the paper
as there is no mention of burial and species interaction. Also, the referee
does not understand that our chosen variables were used to assess morphological
and physiological responses of species with biotic interactions and burial
(even though it is stated in the objectives). The referee states that our
“goals seem way too ambitious for the experiments”; however, connecting our
results to published work of these species building different dunes was not an
objective of the study, but a broader context to help understand the
significance of changes in growth due to these biotic interactions and to
provide justification for examining these two species. Had the referee
summarized our paper and the objectives, this may have become clear to him/her.
Instead, the referee begins the review with “The manuscript seems poorly
prepared” and gives vague statements such as “In fact, the traits in this
experiment are not well justified for the questions addressed in this paper”,
“Details are missing about background”, and “things are out of order”, without
providing any further examples or clarification to help us understand what is
lacking. I understand that more information and citations regarding replacement
studies (which are commonly used in recent ecological literature) woulde
useful to focus the reader on our objective. Also, I realize we should discuss
species interactions instead of competition and discuss the relative inter vs.
intra-specific interactions, but this is not an experimental design flaw,
rather a point of clarification.
Overall, I am
disappointed that a journal would accept a review that is written in such a
scathing and unprofessional manner. This does nothing to help advance science
or encourage young scientists to pursue the field. I hope in that writing this
letter you will reconsider using this reviewer in the future and you will seek
a third referee when receiving reviews of this nature. I also write
this letter in hope that the young scientist who is first author on this paper
does not let poorly written reviews which are incapable of finding any
scientific value in a paper that is “thoughtful, well-formulated hypotheses;
appropriate variables, sufficient data, and adequate statistics to address
those hypotheses; and it was well organized and clear (to a native English
speaker) if not particularly well written” discourage her from pursuing science
in the future. Reviews such as #2 are completely unnecessary for helping any
scientist to improve and make better and more impactful contributions to
science. I will be hesitant in the future regarding submissions to AoB Plants.
Thank you for your
time,
Julie Zinnert
As an addendum, I did receive a very respectful response to my letter. I hope that in providing feedback I can encourage others to do so, and also to ultimately move towards a standard in etiquette for reviews. It is difficult to accept a review as objective that is terse and only highlights faults without being written in the context of the goals of the study. We all have bias and it comes out in peer review too easily.
As an addendum, I did receive a very respectful response to my letter. I hope that in providing feedback I can encourage others to do so, and also to ultimately move towards a standard in etiquette for reviews. It is difficult to accept a review as objective that is terse and only highlights faults without being written in the context of the goals of the study. We all have bias and it comes out in peer review too easily.