*The details of which I will keep confidential in accordance with COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers. However, I hope you will trust me that if I told you any details about this article, it would look so, so much worse.
Stage One
I can tell by the abstract I won’t like this article, so I’ll treat myself to a mini-reckoning about whether that matters – if articles deserve the courtesy of at least a somewhat sympathetic ear in review; and when I put it that way, I know immediately, of course, OF COURSE, they don’t. They deserve the dignity of questioning, of criticism; they deserve the opportunity for improvement.
I can give it that.
The abstract is rich with theoretical jargon, excessively so, I think, but so it often goes with theory. The method looks interesting; the topic is in my wheelhouse. I click accept.
Stage Two
It’s not in the journal’s usual format. Inconsiderate, but not my problem.
The introduction is mostly what I expected, except.
Except. They used one of my favorite words – not so much a word, as a concept, one of my favourite concept-words, and it doesn’t really make sense here. And it’s not explained. Is this what we’re doing now? Has it become so popularized we’ll throw it around where it doesn’t make sense, like expedient? Ugh.
Why so many scare quotes?
Seems to me this intro is trying to step around a pretty giant elephant. But I suppose this would all make sense to me if I bought the overall premise. I just don’t buy the overall premise. My bad. I must compensate for my biases.
Of course, there isn’t much cited support for the overall premise. That’s a problem; I’ll make some notes.
Stage Three
Oh….this is actually bad! It’s kind of a relief, honestly. This piece is so sure of itself that I was worried I was being contrarian. I can help here, if they’ll listen. I’ll need to be thorough. I’ll try to be nice.
The lit review is much more moderate about the state of things than the intro. That’s good, except.
Except there’s not really any sources here related to the main subject, even in broad strokes. There’s far too much to include everything, but a well-chosen survey? Essential. Major revisions at least. Why would they think this was sufficient?
The method’s still looks interesting, except.
Except there’s a lot of weird assumptions here, and I’m not sure where they come from. The examples are completely superficial. I’m…not convinced they understand this topic at all.
Any mention of AI use? Hmmm.
Stage Four
Well this part’s not so bad, eventually, if they did the work to test it. I’ll suggest that. They could reconceive and resubmit.
What’s this part doing down here? It’s just more lit review.
What was this article trying to do again? Right, the method. But…where do they actually do that?
I don’t think there’s any saving this.
Stage Five
That’s a weird claim, let’s check it out. Oh damn, it’s from a book and there’s no page number. But there’s an ebook, and I can search this…intro textbook. That’s a pretty bold claim from a textbook…and it doesn’t seem to be here.
Could have missed it, let’s check the reference list. They didn’t even try to get their APA right. What’s up with that one?
Actually, a lot of these are books. A weird amount. So much harder to verify. Let’s find a direct quote, so I can get the page.
Except…there are no direct quotes…in this entire article.
Stage Six
I’m being punked, right? Did they do this on purpose? To see if I would notice? I’m not sure if that makes it better or worse.
What’s the other possibility? They couldn’t possibly be this thoughtless, this careless?
This reference doesn’t say that, that one’s a misinterpretation at best, this one…doesn’t exist. Or that one. Oh.
They are just that thoughtless. And careless. I’ve spent hours working on this in good faith. Trying to help an author that doesn’t exist.
Stage Seven
What a beautiful future we’ve made.