Timeline for How should one deal with criticism from formal superiors (advisors, reviewers) when they have misunderstood the criticized aspect of the work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14 at 15:06 | comment | added | Jon Custer | @walen - tell them what your are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them... | |
| Oct 14 at 10:07 | comment | added | walen | @zx-81 "I did exactly that in the last paragraph of the question" Well maybe you should've done it in the third, second or even first paragraph? That's the exact definition of making it easier for the reader. If you want them to consider certain aspects when engaging with your work, tell them at the beginning, not at the end. | |
| Oct 13 at 16:41 | comment | added | ZeroTheHero | Rule #1 of communication: what matters is the message received, not the message sent. The onus is on the writer to be clear; if you cannot convince higher-ups of what you do, the problem is with you. Adding secondary details is why appendices were invented. | |
| Oct 13 at 13:52 | comment | added | terdon | @zx-81 if the reader/interlocutor misunderstood, then you need to explain to remove their misunderstanding. I don't understand what other situation there may be here. Sure, it could be that they misunderstood because they're idiots, or lazy, and your text/argument was actually perfect. That doesn't change anything at all: they still misunderstood, so you need to explain. If you have a supervisor who is offended when their misunderstanding is pointed out, then that is a whole different problem that needs to be fixed since that is neither healthy nor expected. | |
| Oct 13 at 9:50 | comment | added | zx-81 | " to be even clearer, or if you want, even more blatant, about your explanations. " Yes of course, but this can then put off other reades/reviewers (I for myself do not like blatantly dwelling on a point and see it as unscientific). This the dilemma I posed in the original question. | |
| Oct 13 at 9:47 | comment | added | zx-81 | "then apparently your engagement was not clear enough for this particular reader. " Lack of clarity of my exposition is of course one possibility, but not the only possible reason. It my also be the case, that, e.g., the reviewer actually lacks expertise in ths special case or simply did not allocate enough time for the reveiw. | |
| Oct 13 at 9:33 | comment | added | Stephan Kolassa | If you did already anticipate the criticism, and engaged with it in your paper, then apparently your engagement was not clear enough for this particular reader. This may mean that you need to be even clearer, or if you want, even more blatant, about your explanations. Or it may mean that your reader is unreasonably unwilling to read and engage with your manuscript. Without looking at the paper itself and thinking about what "reasonable" expectations would be, it's hard to say. At some point this crosses into "what to do about toxic superiors" territory, which we also have lots of threads on. | |
| Oct 13 at 9:29 | comment | added | zx-81 | This answer actually illustrates my point ;-) I made it clear with an extra paragraph that this question is not about the (frequent) case of "the fault is on the side of the author". you wrote: "that at least issues that can easily pop up are already explicitly addressed in your text." I did exactly that in the last paragraph of the question, yet it got ignored ;-). So again: What is the best approach if the fault actually is on the side of the critic (e.g. when they simply did not allocate enough time for the review) | |
| Oct 12 at 15:31 | comment | added | Jon Custer | Yes yes yes, make the reader’s job easy! Writing is hard and takes time, but a well written paper pays it back in spades when it is accepted without revision. | |
| Oct 12 at 13:26 | history | answered | Stephan Kolassa | CC BY-SA 4.0 |