Sometimes It's the Ref Who Fouls Out

Even if the referee is justified in pointing out errors, the use of harsh language remains unjustified. Such lack of judgment in matters of professional courtesy may also be indicators of poor scientific judgment. For example, a recent paper of mine on Laplacian orbit determination was declared "hopeless" by the referee, despite the fact that I successfully calculated an orbit using the method. A careful reading of the report confirmed my suspicion about that referee's scientific judgment: He showed little concern with factual errors and apparently had a visceral reaction to anyone questioning Gaussian orbit determination, an alternative to Laplace's method.

The ideal solution to abusive referee's reports would be to eliminate anonymity. I always sign my referee's reports. If authors disagree with me, at least they know where to direct their ire. Editors, however, seem to prefer anonymity for referees. An author who receives an abusive report should immediately request review by another referee.

The editor of the journal to which I submitted the paper on Laplacian orbit determination afforded me an even better solution. He sent me an e-mail followed by a letter; in both, he apologized for the harsh tone of the report and offered to send my paper to another referee. That type of response should be standard among journal editors. It does add to their workload, but without submitted manuscripts, editors have no job to perform. And authors, who spend considerable time and effort to make a manuscript publishable, deserve an impartial review and, certainly, a modicum of courtesy.