Professor Galey stated that too often reviewers tend to try to crowbar the subject of a paper into their own paradigm instead of evaluating the paper for its own merit. If this happens to often, what does the author of the paper do?
In academia, peer review is often used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication. If I wrote an article, and several scholars reviewed it, but tore it apart for reasons other than its merit towards the research I was conducting, how do you justify this?
I don’t recall Professor Galey mentioning this in class.