![]() ![]() The Scale of Silliness (SOS) is a five-point interval mechanism for the categorization of inadequate feedback. The scales of silliness and belligerence we developed are intended as tools for fostering such skills among emerging academics. Nevertheless, the anecdotes we received were sufficiently inspiring to generate a solid foundation of ideas on which a rigorous evidence-based framework could be devised.Ĭompetence in the use of the SATSQ approach to respond appropriately to peer review feedback requires an ability to assess precisely both the relative utility of comments received and appropriate professional etiquette. Reticence to defy religious statutes forbidding aspersion may also have contributed to the informants’ silence. In spite of Canada’s increasingly litigious mores, the nature of submissions more likely reflects a solidarity that exists within the field of medicine and a reluctance to make ad hominem attacks on the peer-review process than the expected fear of potential lawsuits. However, despite the holding of breath and crossing of fingers, we received no responses that met the necessary inanity threshold. We extracted summaries of their content and key messages for use in designing the evidence-based framework. We assessed submitted anecdotes for the required level of inanity, categorized them according to theme and analyzed them using the grounded theory qualitative research paradigm. We sought a broad geographic representation to minimize bias and assure international applicability. We solicited anecdotes from 50 key informants representing 15 different professions at 33 institutions in Australia, Barbados, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. We removed anecdotes from the sample that did not meet the predetermined inanity threshold. ![]() The comments were submitted by key informants who were sampled purposively based on their close professional or personal relationships with the authors. ![]() We gathered examples of silly comments in two stages, on June 24 and Dec. The evidence-based framework for responding to silly comments from reviewers was informed by our collection, categorization and analysis of the most easily accessible anecdotes available. We developed the framework to address a substantial gap in the literature and to equip emerging academics with greater willingness and skill to apply this innovative technique for responding appropriately to the silliest of reviewers’ comments. We present an evidence-based framework to guide beginners in their use of the SATSQ approach. Progress in this area may not be possible without such evidence. Adopters of the approach themselves, however, will undoubtedly require the kind of support and guidance that only the strongest of evidence can provide. Altruism and the potential for global recognition may draw some leaders to champion the important cause represented by the SATSQ approach. Intuition suggests that such consequences could include damaged professional reputations, lost opportunities for funding, and fewer publications. 2 One of the greatest barriers to its ubiquitous use may be a perception by emerging academics that adverse consequences may result should they apply the approach inappropriately. 3, 4ĭitching existing rigid formalities and following the SATSQ approach to silly comments may prove key to overcoming this grand challenge. This reality has undoubtedly led to the unprecedented levels of stress, psychosomatia and absent-mindedness that plague contemporary medicine. ![]() In Canada, for example, physicians are expected to follow the CanMEDS Competencies, which requires them to demonstrate, inter alia, “high personal standards of behavior.” 2 Indeed, the invention of the peer-review process has pushed academics to delicately nurture, refine and massage their responses to reviewers in the knowledge that their livelihoods depend on doing so. Research suggests that professionals may not respond appropriately to silly comments because they feel bound by stringent rules of collegiality 1 they are expected simply to bite their tongues and respond with utmost diplomacy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |