It is not just the unprofessional comments that hits the most underrepresented groups hard, but the long grinding process of publishing for one's livelihood . Even professional and tough feedback can cut most unkindly and draw blood. https://t.co/jz2qK9I55H
Journal editor hat on: given findings @NSilbiger @Amber_D_Stubler that unprofessional peer reviews impact scholarly productivity (of underrepresented groups particularly)(https://t.co/0sQaariATT): Reviewers: *stop using the second person* (“you”) in reviews. 1/2
"... results indicate that unprofessional reviews likely have and will continue to perpetuate the gap in STEM fields for traditionally underrepresented groups in the sciences."
https://t.co/yRpGHYsYJm
Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM [PeerJ] - none of this is surprising and yet so discouraging that this is still our reality. We’ve got a long way to go until we do better. https://t.co/8zLgmHf867
"Our data show that unprofessional peer reviews are pervasive in STEM disciplines, regardless of race/ethnicity or gender, with over half of participants reporting that they had received unprofessional comments."
https://t.co/0GtDqIUnIT
Via @NSilbiger & @amber_d_stubler in @thePeerJ: in this study of 1000+ STEM scientists in 40+ countries, >50% reported receiving an unprofessional peer review -- white men least likely to question own aptitude after receiving an unprofessional review https://t.co/0j5UBmhuBq