Caroline Levine has a wonderful essay at Inside Higher Ed on the relationship between reviewers and authors. All I have to say is: I hope the reviewers of Major Academic Project have read this essay or share Levine’s values.

I have been the recipient of some truly nasty reviews: mean-hearted and cruelly intentioned. The reviewers’ contempt positively dripped from the pages. Their words are still imprinted on my brain and, were it not so painful, I could likely quote them here.

I’ve also received perplexing reviews. Once I was sent a 3 page, single-spaced set of comments about an article that concluded, “Of course, it would be impossible for the author to comply with these suggestions in the space of an article.” Huh?

When I was recently been given the opportunity to be a reviewer, rather than remain forever a review-ee, I tried to bear in mind my own suffering and confusion. I stove to be clear and concise in my criticism but most of all, to not use the space of the review as an opportunity to score points for my own brilliance at the expense of the author. Instead of jealously guarding my tiny scrap of expertise, I attempted to be generous and encouraging even though the material was clearly the product of a novice writer — particularly because the author was a novice.

Levine articulates this ethic very well: “If these two characters [the writer and the reviewer] compete within my professional life, I’ve sometimes needed to remind myself that the writer’s struggles came first, and hardest. In fact, it’s started to seem crucial to recognize that these two perspectives are not ethically equal. I believe deeply that the sheer acts of crafting, finishing, and circulating one’s work are immense and brave achievements. I believe, too, that most writers labor under tough circumstances, institutional, intellectual, and emotional. Meanwhile, peer readers wield a serious institutional power in the moment that they report on manuscripts. And most peer readers, protected by anonymity and typically tenured, look at the world from a position of security and authority. There’s always something ethically amiss, then, in a relationship that takes place between valiant, laboring writers and crabby, powerful readers.”

A modest proposal to academic journals and publishing houses: make Levine’s article required reading for all reviewers and editors.