Editors Quote by Susan Fiske
“If you are doing a peer review of somebody's paper before publication, the editor would not allow you to speculate about the person's motives, about their place in the hierarchy. It's not scientifically relevant.”
About This Quote
Source Article: Social Psychology Review, 2018
She warns that peer reviewers should avoid speculating on authors’ motives or status, focusing only on scientific merit.
In simple terms: Reviewers must stay objective.
Key Takeaway
Focus on data, not personal speculation.
Themes
ethics
objectivity
peer review
Mood
analytical
critical
Type
academic
instructional
When to use this quote
- journal manuscript review
- grant evaluation
- conference submissions
Key Concepts
academic standards
bias avoidance
Questions to Reflect On
- Why is motive speculation harmful?
- When might author background matter?
A Different Perspective
Some argue personal context can be relevant.
![“Some people have set up sort of "gotcha" algorithms that apparently crawl through psychology articles and look for fraudulent p-values [a measure of the likelihood that experimental results weren't a fluke]. But they're including rounding errors that don't change the significance levels of the…” quote by Susan Fiske](https://sms4smile.com/quotes/img-quotes/5b1/susan-fiske-46605_algorithms_some-people-have-set-up-sort-of-gotcha-a_2326797.jpg)
![“I walked all around it [the Guggenheim Bilbao] and couldn't find one clear, clean shot. To make things worse, the weather was lousy. Nothing about this rang commercial money shot. In a situation like this there's only one thing to do: forget about pleasing editors, please yourself.” quote by Robert Polidori](https://sms4smile.com/quotes/img-quotes/375/robert-polidori-55002_clean_i-walked-all-around-it-the-guggenheim-bi_9097.jpg)
