Recently I had been proofreading an article I wrote, looking at
The Particular and the Universal – Indigenous Sports for the Integrity of the Global Village
Though too often this work is the annoying part – but in this case I actually enjoyed it, thinking that there could be other criteria for peer reviewing etc.
- How often does one interrupt reading to thing, reflect deeply on what had been written
- How often does one detect connections that are unusual, though showing uo as being interesting
- How often does one find new knowledge instead of new information confirming what one knows
- How often is something written with which one does not agree, while one feels nevertheless stimulated by it and is provoked to think about the own ideas and the own standard arguments
- Is there anything in the text that really provokes looking something up in order to gain some deeper insight, especially is there any “strange cat” – equally alive and dead – mentioned: something that one may have vaguely come across but one is now keen to recap, or study more in detail though it has nothing to do with one’s usual focus (e.g. Schroedinger’s cat – if it is alive of dead is not centrally a matter of [animal] welfare but still may of interest for everybody)
Recently, after having given a presentation, I received a mail by the Dean who was actually hosting the event, He said
…. I thought about a few explanations you shared with us. Nice job. Inspiring …
Leaving aside that there had been some interesting discussion at the end, a line as the one quoted may be the “highest praise” one can get after giving a presentation or writing something. A kind of “slow listening”.
For journal reviews (and reading, of course), it may be good to revisit the usual “comments to the editor”/”comments to the author”.
I remember once about an author, let’s call her A. A’s submission to a journal had been rejected by the review (anonymised process on all sides). The reason, brought forward:
The author did not make any reference to the work that had been undertaken by A.
Again, mind, the reviewer did not know that A had been actually the author of the reviewed article.
And the moral of an amoral academia: Never say anything new, always repeat what you said … – with a wee bit of change, possible just put in the new data: instead of 2xyz, the new article has the data of 2xyz+5. Interesting …