The first message started innocently enough. It was a welcome back to the new year and a projection to forthcoming work that a dispersed group of peer reviewers would be engaging in the coming year. The publication was shifting to a rolling publication deadline. Some of the group members would be continuing from prior years, and others were brand new invitees to the endeavor.

The members were using a basic collaboration software, but most of the work would be done by email—both an electronic mailing list and then a private email with the editor-in-chief. There was a sense of shared purpose in the work, but the members did not really engage much in virtual conversations with each other. And in my years of working in this group, I had seen the opinions fall along a very broad range of opinions, all along a wide spectrum. The feedback would be disparate and broad and generally helpful, but that was partly because the editor-in-chief would be contextualizing the feedback and couching it in ways to add value to the recipients. In other words, there was a nicely broad range of areas of expertise and personalities—and the reviewers were very willing to share their ideas.

I suppose it’s fair to say that the group would collaborate now and again…in terms of elicitations from the editor-in-chief about a direction for the publication—but these were few and far between.

An Outpouring of Emails

The response started out slowly enough. There were a few postings to the broader list…just good wishes for a new year and an acknowledgment of the initial message and expressed enthusiasms for the year’s work. I personally had responded to the editor-in-chief on an email back channel, and we shared information and enthusiasms that way. So I was a little surprised when a couple dozen of the group all jumped on board and started echoing the same messages of happy new year, happy to be back, and looking forward to the work.

Interpreting the Posts

I suspect that people were posting to show their enthusiasm and to affirm their commitment to the work. I suspect that most were happy because of the new year. Maybe there was also an unthinking dynamic of just following along after a couple people posted their responses. Many clearly were very affectionate towards their editor, who really has a knack for building a virtual community that may or may not meet at various conferences throughout the year.

A Cynical View

Having been part of this group for many years, I’ve seen when works come in, and the team members are so busy with local challenges that they do not have the time to review the work and provide constructive feedback and a “yay” or a “nay.” Sometimes, there would just be a small hardy band of individuals who would be able to critique work. That was the “inside story.” A cynical part of me reminded me that of all those posting so enthusiastically, only a few would emerge as those with strong follow-through throughout the year. Those who respond in public are not necessarily the ones who will follow through on providing substantive critiques. The flip side is also true. Many of those who did not respond with a public message on the electronic mailing list are stalwarts who respond off-list and provide insightful feedback. These are the ones who actively recruit colleagues for submissions. Some of these are the ones who write and collaborate with colleagues to offer works for the publication’s blind peer review.

Actual Hard Work Later On

Anyway, it’s probably too early in the year to get fatigued by a range of over-the-transom messages without informational value except for the variety of names crossing the screen. Later in the year is when we’ll all actually get irritated by non-information sent over the wires.

Then again, maybe we’ll all remember the energetic response early in the year and respond when it counts. That would be the more optimistic view befitting the start of a newish year.