CMAJ • December 8, 2009; 181 (12). First published December 7, 2009; doi:10.1503/cmaj.091164
© 2009 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
cmaj.091164v1
181/12/E301    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rosenfield, D.
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, S. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rosenfield, D.
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, S. J.

Holiday Review

Research

Snappy answers to stupid questions: an evidence-based framework for responding to peer-review feedback

Daniel Rosenfield, B.Arts.Sc and Steven J. Hoffman, BHSc

From the Faculties of Medicine (Rosenfield) and Law (Hoffman), the Department of Political Science and the Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto. Ont.; and the Faculty of Health Sciences (Hoffman), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Correspondence to: Daniel Rosenfield, University of Toronto, c/o Office of Interprofessional Education, Med West Medical Centre, 750 Dundas St. W, Suite 3–302, Toronto ON M6J 3S3; fax 416 603-5580; daniel.rosenfield{at}utoronto.ca

Background: Authors are inundated with feedback from peer reviewers. Although this feedback is usually helpful, it can also be incomprehensible, rude or plain silly. Inspired by Al Jaffe’s classic comic from Mad Magazine, we sought to develop an evidenced-based framework for providing "snappy answers to stupid questions," in the hope of aiding emerging academics in responding appropriately to feedback from peer review.

Methods: We solicited, categorized and analyzed examples of silly feedback from peer reviewers using the grounded theory qualitative research paradigm from 50 key informants. The informants represented 15 different professions, 33 institutions and 11 countries (i.e., Australia, Barbados, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA).

Results: We developed a Scale of Silliness (SOS) and a Scale of Belligerence (SOB) to facilitate the assessment of inadequate peer-review feedback and guide users in preparing suitable responses to it. The SOB score is tempered by users’ current mood, as captured by the Mood Reflective Index (MRI), and dictates the Appropriate Degree of Response (ADR) for the particular situation.

Conclusion: Designed using the highest quality of (most easily accessible anecdotal) evidence available, this framework may fill a significant gap in the research literature by helping emerging academics respond to silly feedback from peer reviewers. Although use of the framework to its full extent may have negative consequences (e.g., loss of promotion), its therapeutic value cannot be understated.