Focusing on the human dimension, we look at scholarly peer review as a space for relationship building and analyze how negligent reviewing can detrimentally affect a sense of community. We introduce an analytical framework that is based on the humanistic pedagogical approach developed by Carl Rogers and Natalie Rogers and that operates with Rogerian concepts of empathy, unconditional positive regard, realness of reviewers, psychological safety, psychological freedom, and opportunity for challenging intellectual experiences. We briefly address the role of peer review in the changed scholarly landscape; posit it as a privilege and an unmatched opportunity; examine in detail the elements of helpful and unhelpful reviews; and give advice to authors on how to respond to reviews, especially the unhelpful ones. It is our hope that the article will be of interest to faculty, PhD students, practitioners who aspire to publish, and anyone involved in scholarly communication and grant reviewing.

中文翻译：

---

超越学术出版：LIS中同行评审的人文维度

着眼于人的维度，我们将学术同行评审视为建立关系的空间，并分析过失的评审如何会对社区意识产生不利影响。我们介绍了一个基于卡尔·罗杰斯和纳塔莉·罗杰斯开发的人文主义教学方法的分析框架，该框架与罗杰式的移情，无条件积极关注，评论者的真实性，心理安全，心理自由以及挑战性智力经验的机会有关。我们简要地介绍了同行评审在不断变化的学术领域中的作用；把它当作特权和无与伦比的机会；详细检查有用和无用评论的要素；并就如何回应评论（尤其是无用评论）向作者提供建议。