Timeline for Should I simply ignore it if authors assume that I'm male in their response to my review of their article?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2018 at 9:43 | comment | added | allo | I do not think reviewers (and editors) would start to discuss something that's unrelated to the paper during a review, if there is no good reason for it. When a female reviewer feels addressed in the wrong way, it can be an issue, which is worth to be forwarded. If a male reviewer starts arguing "But I could be female and then it would be wrong …", this is a topic to be discussed at another place than during a review process. So assuming a serious review process, I would conclude from still getting this issue forwarded that there was a reason for it, which probably means a female reviewer. | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 21:20 | comment | added | allo | If the editor forwards it, as an author, I would assume that the reviewer's gender is non-male after this comment, as the comment would be totally off-topic for the review otherwise. I don't think reviewers or editors would want to discuss such issues in the review, if there is no good reason to do so. | |
| Nov 5, 2018 at 11:24 | comment | added | Dan Fox | @Agent_L: I edited the proposal to make the change you suggest. Additionally, I don't pretend to offer a definitive wording, rather simply something viable, and what I've proposed surely can be improved in various ways. | |
| Nov 5, 2018 at 11:22 | history | edited | Dan Fox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved the proposed language following suggestion in a comment.
|
| Nov 5, 2018 at 9:10 | comment | added | Agent_L | I'd phrase it "could be bothersome to some reviewers.". Otherwise, it's also "gender assumption" thing but in opposite direction. | |
| Nov 4, 2018 at 2:34 | comment | added | Mathieu K. | Minor point: the "and that" yields uncertainty: does it refer back to being advised, or to being presupposed? | |
| Nov 4, 2018 at 2:16 | comment | added | Mathieu K. | I'd suggest that the current italicized formulation (as of revision 1) makes assumptions about the authors' intent. The phrase "his concerns" might presuppose that the reviewer is male; it might alternately be used with gender-neutral intent because, until recently, prescriptive grammar taught people to use male pronouns for unknown individuals. With respect, stating these assumptions as fact might not adequately cover the possible scenarios. I can't seem to think of a formulation that covers both possibilities yet isn't cumbersome. | |
| Nov 2, 2018 at 18:24 | comment | added | CramerTV | While I may not agree with some of your comments above, I do believe this is a very reasonable answer to the question. | |
| Nov 2, 2018 at 16:41 | history | answered | Dan Fox | CC BY-SA 4.0 |