text:
Who are the people reviewing far more papers than they're submitting for review?
I've submitted more papers for review than I've reviewed myself.  I try to review as much as I can, but it's limited by incoming requests.  Publons says I'm somewhat above the median (of 0.3 reviews : 1 publication), although this data is incomplete.

It seems there must be people out there who are reviewing far more papers than they're submitting for review.  But who?
Question: Who are the people reviewing far more papers than they're submitting for review?
I'm just after some mental picture of who is receiving, accepting, and completing large numbers of review requests.  I can't imagine it's high-level professors, who seem constantly busy.  Nor do I expect it's early-career researchers, because they're unestablished and unlikely to be thought of when editors email reviewers.

Over the last few years, I've reviewed about twice as many papers as I've submitted.  I'm an associate professor at an R3 university in the US.  Also keep in mind that both of us are in mathematics, where a review takes a lot of work and journals typically ask for just 1 or 2 reviewers per paper.  In other fields, reviews are much quicker, so it may not be impractical for a senior person to do quite a few.

Anyhow, I am deeply skeptical of the Publons data.

If you include quick opinions, I think post-tenure I've reviewed at least three times as many papers as I've written.

You can sort Publons by number of reviews.  Based on this, the answer would seem to be people like Swapnil Fegade, of the University of North Dakota Grand Forks, who if we believe that data has done 1421 reviews, 441 in the last 12 months, but never published anything.  Again, I'm skeptical.

I suppose a conference organizer (or a close contact) might review a whole lot of the submitted papers personally.  Also, perhaps some research areas review all submitted papers, many of which would normally be desk rejected in mathematics.

"Nor do I expect it's early-career researchers" -- I reviewed many more papers when I was young.   From my experience, lots of reviews are from 'newbies' or newly minted PhDs, which can be frustrating at times. Nowadays, I only accept a review request if it's from an editor I know or if a paper seems to address a problem in one of my projects (very rare).   As an approximation, I used to do 3-5 papers a month; nowadays, I do 5-10 papers per year, tops!

I've probably reviewed 4 to 5 times as many papers (mathematics) as I've submitted (early 1990s to late 2000s), but this was mainly a factor of being in primarily teaching positions, and later in a non-academic position, as well as taking on several major unfinished projects early in my "career" (which are still off-and-on being continued, as I have time and interest). I'm not sure when I last did a full formal review, but I have done 3 or 4 "pre-review judgement" requests in the last few years, one of which was probably extensive enough to merit being a full review.

@NateEldredge Huh. I find the idea that someone is doing any reviews if they've never published to be weird at multiple levels. First, how do editors decide they are someone worth sending anything to (or even know their field)? Second, why would any be inclined to trust the reviews of someone who has never themselves done something worth publishing? That seems really strange, and makes me inclined to also be skeptical of these numbers.

A thought. In some engineering disciplines, say "mechanical" or "civil" engineering, reviewers can also be practitioners who are active in conferences and committees. These reviewers do not submit/publish papers frequently, but are asked to review papers given their expertise and field experience.

@NateEldredge many people (myself included) do not bother to import their publications into Publons. So having 0 publications is not an indicator of anything. While I am deeply sceptical of some really high review counts, it's possible that's actually a quality indicator too. A couple of my recent reviews, when the editor sent out the response to authors, I could see that at least one of the other 'reviews' was a single paragraph with almost no content.

@JoshuaZ: my supervisor was editor of a journal and although I don't know for sure I think that it was probably he who asked me to do my first reviews. (I had one submitted manuscript at that time, though).

The average of 0.3 hides a distribution that is likely very skewed, with a few reviewers who review far more papers than they submit and a lot of reviewers who review very few papers.

This has to be field-specific. In my field, me and everybody somewhat senior-ish I know review much more than they submit - which makes sense because one needs to make up for people who only submit (i.e., early-stage researchers, industrial people, professors who always say no, etc. etc.)

One thing about Publons is that one paper can could for multiple reviews. Let's say I review round 1 and major revisions. I'll get to see round 2, which is usually a short review (e.g., thank you for making the suggest changes).  This can inflate the number of reviews somebody does.

@RichardErickson ah, that makes a difference. In my answer below I assumed it was number of papers reviewed, not number of rounds of reviewing, when calculating my own ratio.

@Brian Borchers, probably true, and the Publons data can additionally be expected to be very imcomplete, so are not really a good indicator for the question asked. I review much more than I have on my Publons profile, simply because I do not bother to manually send the info to Publons for journals who are not partnered with Publons. I suspect many people act similarly.

Its pointed out in one of the answers below, but papers often have many authors. My field, molecular biology/biomedical science, papers almost always have at least, say 5 authors, and 20 is not uncommon. If that paper needs 3 reviews, then each of those 20 authors need to do only 0.15 reviews. I'd also think that biology probably publishes a very large number of papers (around 800k-900k per year), so might skew the statistics.

I can't imagine it's high-level professors, who seem constantly busy.

If you want something done, ask someone who's constantly busy.

Nor do I expect it's early-career researchers, because they're unestablished and unlikely to be thought of when editors email reviewers.

I can't point to specific posts, but I've seen enough references on this site to the scenario that I believe it's not uncommon for the editor to ask the high-level professor and the professor to delegate to an early-career researcher in their department.

Some actual data points: this happened to me twice, with different professors. Another time, I was asked to co-referee.

Note the prof usually replies to the editor to ask that the review job be sent to the postdoc directly. Of course, the prof delegating their own reviews to postdocs under the profs name would be highly unethical and definitely against most journal policies

@WetlabStudent: still it is something not at all unheard of.

@tomasz It happened to me regularly while working in academia, possibly close to half the reviews I've done (one professor used to tell me that he had recommended to ask me, one was himself an editor who probably sent me reviews and may have recommended me in addition without telling me, one was delegating his own reviews, sometimes only asking for partial reviews on a particular aspect of the paper). I've certainly reviewed far more papers than I've submitted as first author.

Not so sure there aren’t plenty of professors unbothered by ethics.  I once found five copies of the same paper, on five professor’s websites.  Without attribution, each giving the impression it was by that professor.

@WetlabStudent: Of course, this is what I meant. I don't think I would have agreed otherwise. (With the co-refereeing, the editor was asked if this was okay beforehand.)

@WGroleau: Well, I can't imagine this sort of thing happening in my area (what with it being so small that it would get out and ruin someone's reputation real fast). The closest thing I am aware of is some notes on a professor's website, attributed (jointly) to another one, who claims he did not contribute to them.

It makes a lot of sense - it's the same thing in industry. How do you go from early-career to mid-career without those kinds of tasks, really?

First, that ratio is based on published papers, not submitted. But the principle is the same. I was given advice several years ago that you should be reviewing 3 or 4 times as many papers as you submit.
Think about it this way; if papers need 3 reviewers and half of the papers don't get published, then the break even point is 6 reviewers per published paper. If you are in a field where 3 authors is typical, then all authors would need to review 2 papers per paper. But not all authors are able to review equivalently, so 3-4 seems to work for my discipline.
An editor would be able to give you the best information about who they ask, but senior postdocs and low to mid level academics seem to be the ones reviewing in my discipline. On the other hand, I checked publons and the highest count is actually a semi-retired professor.

I agree to this in everything except the number: I typically feel that reviewing twice as much as I submit is sufficient. I'm not picking up the slack for anybody else. That said, I usually have very low criteria for accepting the review until I hit the twice as many as submissions mark, but then still continue accepting reviews, just being more selective on topic match and journal quality, so I do likely end up reviewing 3-4 times as much as I submit in the end (even when "more selective" I realize I rarely have the heart to decline a review).

My rule of thumb is: if I submit to a journal that requires x referee reports, I should referee at least x times for this journal for every paper I submit there.

People who submit good reviews are asked to do more of them, and then more, and more, and....
Let me tell you about my own refereeing history.  My research profile is not stellar, but it is adequate for a tenured theoretical physicist at a middling R1 institution; I typically publish something like two to five papers per year.  On the other hand, I referee something like ten times that number of papers, and the refereeing work ends up being a major component of my professional service.  In the last couple of years, I have won refereeing awards from several major journals.
Over four years as a post-doc, I got one paper per year to referee.  Around the time I was established enough to get a tenure-track job, the number jumped to about one paper per month, and it has continued to increase (roughly linearly) in the decade-plus since.  Unlike some of my colleagues, I try to referee practically everything I am sent that I am qualified to evaluate, and as I have built up a relationship with some journal editors, I have both been sent more papers and have been assigned to adjudicate more complicated situations, such as cases where previous referees have disagreed or appeals submitted by the authors of rejected papers.
Frankly, this does cut into some time that I could probably be usefully for research.  On the other hand, I feel that, in a certain sense, I owe the professional community my expertise; I want to do at least my fair share.  I work in a somewhat niche area, and there are not a lot of people who are able to give complete evaluations of research in this area.  That means both making sure that papers with fundamental mistakes are not erroneously published, and making sure that the good papers are properly vetted and corrected, to maximize their usefulness.  Recognizing the unacceptably bad papers quickly is a skill, but once the serious problems with a manuscript have been identified, writing a rejection recommendation is not too time consuming.  Checking through good papers for minor elisions and errors, on the other hand, can take quite a bit of time, and that is where there is probably a real tradeoff between refereeing work and research output.  However, as I said, I am happy with where I am currently situated in this regard.

Thank you for your conscientious work and contribution to the community!

Authors in developed countries tend to review much more papers than they submit, while the three biggest countries for which the reverse is true are China, India, and Iran.
Source

Before retiring I worked for a company that (inter alia) did paid research for industrial companies. We had little incentive to publish in the peer refereed literature. There was some incentive to publish in the trade literature, but not much - we were very well known among potential clients. We did participate in industry and regulatory groups as contributions to the "greater good" for the industry. I and many of my senior colleagues reviewed many more papers than we submitted; I can't speak for my colleagues but I regarded it again as contributing to the "greater good".
Edited to add:
Similarly, I had no interest at all in recording my contributions in Publons, which Wikipedia describes as (my emphasis) "...service for academics to track, verify, and showcase their peer review and editorial contributions...".

I am one of your mystery reviewers.  I work in research in industry, and I have gotten a positive reputation in my field for my work.  As such I am frequently requested to review journal articles and since my combination of fields is relatively rare, I generally feel a duty to help ensure the quality of the contributions in that field through reviewing articles (which I frequently do on my own time).
On the other hand, submitting articles is more of a secondary (or even tertiary) function of my job.  Any publications have to be cleared through our IP team to determine if we need to get a patent filed first or even try to protect the knowledge as a trade secret.  When I do publish, it is usually to establish the value of a product or it is part of an academic collaboration I have been engaged in.  As such, I only publish about once a year to every other year.

Actually the most reviewing is, in my field and related ones, done exactly by the two categories that you wanted dismiss.
A reputed professor receive a large number of invitations, so that the ratio is high in spite of refusals.
A successful and young researcher receive relatively few but s/he tends to accept all as it is a new and certainly formative experience.
I suspect, as another answer points out, it's very much field and subfield related. I do personally reviewed much more papers than those I've published.
While a researcher in synthetic chemistry publish and might be invited by a few good journals, one in material science can do that in a broader range, spanning from physics and chemistry to dedicated publications. When preparation of new materials is involved, basically all papers are getting interesting and reviewing becomes a way to stay tune.
Similar scenario is plausible in many applied sciences.
In my field the number of reviewings largely exceeds that of the submitted/published papers for literally every graduate researcher that I ever met.
Also a ratio as those given in your Q, if not individually calculated,  would block research publications. Simple maths suggests that ratio lower than one would be a big problem in the current procedure, except perhaps in fields where having about ten authors or more is common (still some of those fields have also more abundant literature, e.g. medicine).
Also having the name in a author list doesn't make you a referree, at least not one of first and even second choice for a good journal.
Edit 1 after the comment.
Edit 2: Stimulated by this I've finally registered on Publon. While importing most of my papers was a simple click, the thousand review I have done in the past will never show up. So at the current stage I have contributed X papers to literature without having been referee at all.
I've overlooked the fact that OP inspiration was Publon. Basically she can be confident of how much she is reviewing (not enough in my opinion, as for what I and others have written above) but in general one should be highly skeptical of those data, independent of their actual significance.

"Also a ratio as those given in your Q would block research publications. It is simple maths." It'd depend on what the curve looks like - even if the bulk of reviewers are at .3 papers reviewed / paper submitted, a smaller proportion of reviewers with a significantly higher ratio would be able to life the overall propertion to 1:1.

@nick012000 I was aware of such a comment as for one can play with numbers.  First of all a small proportion of heavy reviewers lift up the average anyway. Assuming equally distributed load the ratio should be at least above 1. In some fields there are 10+ authors, but in many 1 is common. Referees are normally at least two. And many journals claim very very high rejection rates. I wanted to convey a message and not demonstrate something.  I'll edit.  Thanks.

Since it's the median they quoted, not the mean, the quoted figure would be less susceptible to being distorted by a small number of very large values.

I suspect a major factor is that ratios will vary significantly by field. In my field (pure math), a typical paper has 1-3 authors and will get reviews from two people (more if it gets rejected post-review and sent to another journal, although overlap of reviewers in that case is not uncommon). So I'd expect the median ratio there to be somewhere around 1. Mine is 1.3 FWIW (I am not on publons but keep records for my own interest).
In other fields the typical number of authors per paper could be much higher without the number of reviewers per paper significantly increasing, so I would expect a much smaller ratio. 0.3 seems reasonable for fields where 10+ author papers are the norm.

+1 for pointing out that the average number of reviews per person will be less than the average number of papers per person if the average number of authors/paper is greater than the average number of reviewers/paper.

(I also think a ratio of around 1 is good for pure math.)

A comment on the question suggests Publons counts reviewing one paper through two rounds as two reviews, not one. In that case my ratio would be significantly higher (about 2).

This is just a theory:  The most active reviewers are editors of low-ranked journals, who assign the reviews to themselves.


text:
Is it significantly inappropriate to wear clothes bearing the name of University X, when working as an official employee at University Y?
I have a hoodie with Dalhousie University written on it (where I used to work), but I now work at Nankai University.
Question: Is it significantly inappropriate to wear clothes bearing the name of University X, when working as an official employee at University Y?
I'm thinking I'm overthinking this, and it's a case of "no one cares".  Or, if someone does care, it would only be a momentary blip.  But I'm not 100% certain.

In that case i'd say that while wearing your Dalhousie hoodie will definitely come across more negatively than positively in your new Uni (I was teased for wearing my BSc alumni hoodie during my MSc), your situational circumstances dictate that "ain't no one got time for that".

Would you be wearing a Pepsi shirt if you were working for Coca-Cola? As an employee, your situation is significantly different to one of a student.

@user8001: One key difference is that Pepsi and Coca-Cola are engaged in a zero-sum competition to sell cola.  They are very nearly substitutes for each other, and every time someone buys a Pepsi, Coca-Cola loses a sale (since they could expand almost limitlessly without changing their business model).  Actively expressing any connection to or appreciation of Pepsi would thus be viewed as disloyalty by Coca-Cola.  This is not generally true at universities, and I imagine nobody at Nankai has any feelings of ill will or bitter competition towards Dalhousie.

As an Bama graduate teaching at a non-SEC school, you'd better believe this past Monday AND Tuesday I was wearing crimson and white :-) Heck, half of my students were too.

One option would be to also buy a hoodie from your current institution. Then at least those you see regularly will know it's not about not supporting Uni Y.

As far as I know, no one outside of the USA cares about these things.

PhD students here tend to wear clothes from Universities they visited or graduated from. And actually, some professors do that to, occasionally. Nobody is offended and sometimes it's a great conversation starter. But this is Europe, other cultures might react differently.

@NajibIdrissi: I wrote my answer with a fully European point of view. I agree I do not pay close attention; only if I happen to notice, it probably leaves a positive impression. The OP was talking about the clothes of an "official employee", which, to me, rather insinuates someone 25 years of age upwards. Finally, I tend to interpret years printed along with institution names as the institution's year of foundation, but I may be misinterpreting things simply because the concept of a "university class of " does not exist in my country.

@AnonymousMathematician Universities are in a zero-sum competition for students, faculty members, and grants if they are within the same country. I'd say universities are constantly in the business of selling themselves. I'd definitely find it weird if an employee of an university was promoting a different "brand".

@user8001: Certainly, there is some competition for faculty members and grants. However, neither is it a goal to dessicate the competitors, nor is there animosity if another institution got the faculty member or grant. In particular, towards students, but also faculty members, the focus on getting best matches between institution and person is much more prevalent than any competition. If a student is interested in topic X, staff from university A will usually point out universities B, C, and D, if A, B, C, and D all deal with X, so the student can get a better overview of the options. ...

... Imagine that happening with commercial businesses, one store or company pointing out towards customers that some other stores or companies sell equivalent products! Likewise, a former employee of a company now working for a competitor would usually not receive any advice or other favours from their former employer. At universities, however, maintaining close ties with one's previous institutions (and even advertising them/advertising the new institution of the former employee) is completely normal.

@FedericoPoloni as far as i know, no one INSIDE of the usa cares about these things. have you ever been to the usa? school rivalries are part of the culture there (just like in any country), but no one ACTUALLY cares. as in, no one is going to be offended. and even if they were, there's absolutely nothing they can do it about it, so it doesn't matter.

I see people do this all the time and it gets the occasional wisecrack but no one really cares.

@sgroves: "school rivalries are part of the culture there (just like in any country)" - maybe I am oblivious to a part of the local culture in my place, but I perceive the concept of "school rivalries" as something distinctly alien that does not exist in the universities that I have been to in my country.

So you're saying I can't wear my Miscatonic University Shirt in my University?

There are definitely cases in which it would stand out as strange or inappropriate.  You should be careful in cases of a rivalry, since that may be viewed as a significant statement even if you meant nothing by it.  (I'm thinking of Harvard vs. Yale or Illinois vs. Iowa.  Athletic rivalries are particularly troublesome, since students may consider the clothing a sign of active support for the rival university.  No reasonable person could take offense, but not everyone is reasonable.)
It's also risky spending too much time wearing clothing emblazoned with a much more prestigious name than the university you are currently at.  You don't want to look like you are ostentatiously reminding everyone that you graduated from Harvard, unlike the riffraff around you.
I don't think either of these will be an issue for wearing a Dalhousie University hoodie at Nankai University.  If this were in the U.S. or Canada, I don't think it would be a problem at all: the worst case scenario is occasional good-natured teasing, and even that's far from certain.  However, I have no experience with how it might be viewed in China, so it's worth looking into that specifically if you have reason to fear the reactions might be different.

Iowa vs. ISU is the only Iowa rivalry that will get you angry glares.

I think you've found the key point here.  They're not adversaries (like the Coke vs. Pepsi example).  If anything, my relationships with the two universities makes them partners.

I'm in China (but not Chinese) and my impression is that rivalries are much more low-key here than in the US. Then again, Chinese people are typically much more concerned with image, so I could imagine some high-level bureaucrat, or even your direct supervisor or coworkers, objecting to the shirt because they think it will give a bad impression, even though in reality nobody actually cares. (Also, even in the US, rivalries are pretty chill except for some big state universities with major athletic programs. You wouldn't get that much bad attention for wearing a Yale shirt at Harvard.)

Illinois vs Iowa --- I think you misspelled "Michigan".

"not everyone is reasonable" - and there goes my hope for the universitary educational system ...

Clemson and South Carolina's rivalry would rival those I reckon!

@HagenvonEitzen wait, you actually thought everyone was reasonable ?

In general, research and education is one big (read: global) network. Unlike it may be the case with commercial entities, competition usually happens on friendly terms (you try to be better, but your goal is not to make the competitor disappear) and it does not preclude collaboration.
A few members of one university might get caught up in feelings of rivalry, but I cannot imagine that to have any real effects towards people with links to the so-called "rival" university. We're talking about universities, not elementary schools.
With this in mind, any obvious links to other places (e.g. clothing from another university) seem positive; they underline that the lecturer has gathered some experience at various places, and thereby, indirectly, imply that the university has a well-connected staff with diverse backgrounds.
In the described situation, one thing to note is, however, that there should be some connection to the institution advertised on the clothes. As described above, when I see staff at my university with clothes advertising a different university, I would consider that positive (=> "people with experience and connections"), but if I found out they have not actually been to that place, I might feel a bit cheated, even though I wouldn't care otherwise.

Agree that it is a friendly gesture to wear logo apparel from affiliated institutions. For instance if Humboldt State University had a regular semester-abroad arrangement with Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

The first sentence of your answer gave me some warm feelings.

If there are hot rivalries between the two universities, then it might be taken as offensive or rude.
I am not familiar with the universities you mentioned, but if you were talking about Texas Tech vs. TAMU or Oklahoma University vs. Oklahoma State then I would say definitely wear the local colors.
Further, as a faculty member - you are almost expected to promote the university brand; and it might seem as odd that a faculty member is wearing "opposing" colors - again, the degree of animosity you would face would depend on the degree of competition between the institutions.

My experience is that faculty members don't take "rivalries" very seriously, so as a faculty member you should feel free to wear clothing from any university you want.  The one caveat (noted by other posters) is that it is a bit lame if you wear clothing from a prestigious university you have never had any affiliation with.  This is actually good advice for everyone; I have run enrichment activities for high school students, and I roll my eyes whenever I see a high school student wearing a Harvard t-shirt.
Mostly I'm answering to share the following anecdote, which illustrates how much you can get away with.  When I was an instructor at MIT, I gave a talk at Caltech.  As a sort of gag gift, they gave me an anti-MIT t-shirt (it says MIT on the front and "because not everyone can get into Caltech" on the back).  I used to wear it when I administered exams.  People were amused, but as far as I can tell no one was genuinely offended.

I think it is appropriate to wear clothes bearing the name of University X.
No one can ask you to wear what you do not want to wear, with a few exceptions.

@NajibIdrissi in some cultures (such as the usa), people don't worry if people think negatively of them because of what they wear, because it really doesn't matter. at schools in the us, people wear what they want, and no one cares. of course dress codes may apply at some jobs, but certainly not at schools.

@NajibIdrissi no, people might care, but it doesn't matter. as in, there won't be any consequences for when you wear another school's shirt. so, do it if you want to.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is Research Fellow a gender-neutral term?
For me, it feels slightly clumsy to say I'm a Research Fellow without actually being a fellow (defined as a male person).  Nevertheless, it's unsurprising to have female research fellows at universities.
Q: Is Research Fellow a gender-neutral term?
With this question, I'm seeking a way to understand why no-one seems to mind using "research fellow" to describe non-males.  Perhaps there's some etymology to the term that would clarify things.

The answers give etymology but I'd also like to point out that "fellow" is widely perceived as gender-neutral in academia. At least, I've never heard anyone use or even suggest an alternative term for fellows of learned societies, research fellowships or the fellows [academic staff] of Oxbridge colleges.

Also the royal society seems to use fellow for women, too.

Yep, OED describes it as "one who shares with another in possession, official dignity, or in the performance of any work". It brings to mind a certain common speech starter by US Presidents, "My fellow Americans..."

"Fellow" is also gender-neutral in medicine: Fellowship

Indeed. Makes a person wonder... sigh. But, yes, operationally, in the two academic milieus I've seen close up and consistently, mathematics and medicine, "fellow" gives no hint of gender, although in both cases "smart money" figures its more likely that a fellow be a male than female, for the usual (dubious) reasons. So the reality is (surprisingly...) unbiased, but that is different than what people may think when they look at it, indeed.

I note that "male person" is the fourth definition in the link you've given, after "comrade, associate," "an equal in rank or power," and "a person holding any of various positions at a university."

Yes, in your reference, the third definition is the one being used, rather than the first:
a member of a group of people who have shared interests, activities, etc.
Of course, we should look to how the word is actually used rather than solely to its dictionary definition, but in this case I think that actually makes the argument even stronger, since academics use the neutral form quite a lot and nobody else (at least in my part of the world) seems to care for the word.

Actually, I think it is definition 6 or possibly 5 that is being used.  And most of the senses listed are not gender specific.

Yes, "research fellow" is a gender neutral term, just as Simone de Beauvoir can be called a "fellow traveler".
The word "fellow" derives from the Old English feolaga which means roughly "one who shares something" and is etymologically not gendered; you are being misled by the more recent colloquial usage (less than 600 years old) to mean male person. But the meaning here, which is specific to the academic context, developed separately (via the notion that the fellows of a college share in its revenues). You can find more details at the wonderful reference, the Online Etymology Dictionary.

Indeed, as you suspect, etymologically it is not gender specific.  If you think about the usages, fellow typically just carries a connotation of "going along with" or "having in common with."  See this page for more on the etymology.  The wikitionary entry also has usage notes stating fellow is not typically used in the sense of "a man" in North America.

Even in British English, where fellow is used to mean man, in an academic context I don't think anyone would consider it to be a gendered term.

The use of the term "fellow" suffers from ambiguity because it has two different meanings, depending upon its intended part of speech. To say a "fellow academician" is to use the word as an adjective whereby it means "belonging to the same class or group; united by the same occupation, interests, etc.; being in the same condition: fellow students; fellow sufferers." ~ dictionary.com But using "fellow" as a noun as in "That fellow standing in line" is unambiguously to refer to a male-coded human being. Thus to say a "Research Fellow" is clearly to use the term "fellow" to indicate a type of research position and, thus, to use it as an adjective: therefore it carries no gender implication. I have attempted to find an alternative adjective with the same meaning, but have been unable find one that works well in English.

I don't follow your answer. In "an assistant professor." "professor" is a noun or an adjective?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Sensible measures to ethically use freely available, but personal web-based comments in research?
In a range of fields (I have in mind gender and sexuality) users make Internet comments revealing personal details about themselves.  Some sites even automatically link to their personal Facebook page.  While this data may be useful for research, there are ethical issues as to how to use this data.
On one hand, they have voluntarily published this material online, and made it accessible to the world.
On the other hand, presumably the audience they had in mind for their post is likely to be limited a handful of users.  It is personal information that could potentially be used against the user.

Question: What are sensible measures to ethically use freely available, but personal web-based comments in research?

What do you have in mind when you say "sensible measures"?  For example, in U.S. universities, this would be considered human subjects research and would be subject to review by an institutional review board.  Are you interested in what sorts of approaches might meet with official approval (by an IRB or the equivalent in other systems)?  Or is this more of an informal question about what the issues are and how one might address them?

At this stage, I guess "informal question about what the issues are and how one might address them" would be a good description.  I'm largely unfamiliar with the process, as I have a mathematical and computer science background, and have yet to require such a review of my work.  I'm considering writing a paper on this topic (since I can make use of my computer science background), and (a) I'm concerned that some kind of ethics approval issues might arise, and (b) I also have my own conscience to consider.

You must not consider writing a paper without IRB approval. You will get yourself in trouble if you do.

Talk to your Institutional Review Board (IRB). You will not be allowed to use any of the information you are collecting unless your research plan has been approved by your IRB, and they will likely require you to deidentify or anonymize data. What exactly is sensible or not, we cannot advise you here -- it's not a question of common sense but of what you can get approved by your IRB, and approval by the IRB is the single important factor in what you can and cannot do.

I guess that's what I'll have to do if I want to proceed: good thing I asked.  (It might be tricky though, since I'm at a Chinese university.)

Deidentification or anonymity would be required. For example general statistics are ok, quotes that can be traced back to the original post are not ok.
Basically, you can apply the same rules as would be applicable for medical data.

Those ethics regarding medical data would require you to get approval for how you are going to collect the data. Web scraping public information, while possibly ethical, is going to meet a bunch of questions.


text:
As a reviewer, is it inappropriate to make unsolicited comments on another reviewer's comments?
I'm reviewing a paper after minor revisions, and can partially see another reviewer's comments in the response letter.
The other reviewer asks the authors to do X, but the authors argue that it's not worthwhile doing X.  I've done things like X myself, and have found it not worthwhile (for the precise reasons the authors state).  Thus, I strongly side with the authors on this matter, and I'm thinking about whether I should inform the editor.  I'm not sure if I'm meant to do this...
Question: As a reviewer, is it inappropriate to make unsolicited comments on another reviewer's comments?
A related question is In peer-review, is it common for a reviewer to be shown and asked to comment on other reviewers' reports?  However, I have not been asked to comment on the other reviewer's comments.

It is appropriate. You're acting in good faith after all, the editor is likely to be interested in what you say, and you're not harming anyone.
This is however the kind of thing to put in the confidential comments to editor box. The authors don't need to know of friction between reviewers.

Nothing wrong with a debate or disagreement as long as it's polite. If everybody agreed on everything nothing would improve. I don't consider this "friction between reviewers" unless you're disagreeing via ad hominem.

Nothing wrong with a debate with the other reviewer, but do it through the editor - it's not something the author should know about.

Why not? The whole enterprise is for the author's benefit. I see no reason for them not to be party to all the feedback and opinions therein.

It can cause the author to lose faith in the editor if the paper is rejected, or at least make the editor's job harder. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2017/06/16/4-thoughts-that-go-through-your-boss-head-when-you-disagree-with-her/#12c79882e2ef point #3 - the same principle applies. Disagreeing with each other before a customer (author in this case) is not good.

I think it's dangerous to treat the scientific process like a business interaction with your boss, and social conservatism ("don't offend me!") has no place in a rigorous academic method, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

The avoidance of "don't offend me" is one of the reasons why it's anonymous, yet with the editor in-between to protect the author from actually offensive/insulting/unprofessional comments from reviewers.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit Wouldn't you say that from the perspective of the journal, the purpose is usually for their own benefit; not that of the author?  It could be beneficial for the author to see this disagreement; but for the journal, it might look unprofessional.  If the journal is doing this for their own benefit, they would want to avoid that.  If journals weren't a business, that would most likely be the best approach.

@JMac: That seems to me to be a valid perspective and observation.

@Allure You’re right, it might make the author lose faith in the editor — and this would be entirely correct in this context.

Seems like reviewers should have a chance to discuss after submitting reviews and update or provide additional post-discussion comments, but the journal does not provide a way to do this. Communicating with another reviewer via your review to the author is obviously bad.

@KonradRudolph not necessarily, you can't see the entire context. For example if the other reviewer said "this paper has [critical error] and the authors should also [do this]", of which the former is not fixed while the latter is the item OP is referring to, then what? What if the other reviewer submitted confidential information that leads to a rejection? By agreeing with the author against the other reviewer in their presence you put pressure on the editor to accept the article. It's just not a good idea.

From my point of view, it is a task of the editor to make sure that you as a referee only get those parts of the communication which are meant for you. Since the response of the authors to another referee's comments is now available to you (intended or not), it is quite impossible to not factor it into your own consideration.
Therefore, I would point out to the editor that, strictly speaking, this thread of the comments is not originally yours -- but now that you have got insight to those points, you can just add a remark saying that in your professional opinion, you deem the authors' response convincing.
This makes clear to the editor that there might have been a mistake in providing that part of the communication to you, and the editor can decide for themselves, whether your stated opinion should be taken into account for the ultimate editor's decision, or not.

I agree with this course of action, but in my field it's normal for authors to write a single response letter to all referees, and nobody worries about referees seeing one another's comments.

@DavidKetcheson indeed. In all my response letters so far, I always included all reviewer comments in one document, without worrying about whether they see it or not. Never had a complaint by the reviewers or editors. I believe everyone sees the benefit in this, after all the purpose of this is to make the paper better. Why not?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/