Our recent paper (https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00096-x) reported that 43% of reviewer comment sets (n=1491) shared with authors contained at least one unprofessional comment or an incomplete, inaccurate of unsubstantiated critique (IIUC). Publication of this work sparked an online (i.e., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit) conversation surrounding professionalism in peer review. We collected and analyzed these social media comments as they offered real-time responses to our work and provided insight into the views held by commenters and potential peer-reviewers that would be difficult to quantify using existing empirical tools (96 comments from July 24th to September 3rd, 2020). Overall, 75% of comments were positive, of which 59% were supportive and 16% shared similar personal experiences. However, a subset of negative comments emerged (22% of comments were negative and 6% were an unsubstantiated critique of the methodology), that provided potential insight into the reasons underlying unprofessional comments were made during the peer-review process. These comments were classified into three main themes: (1) forced niceness will adversely impact the peer-review process and allow for publication of poor-quality science (5% of online comments); (2) dismissing comments as not offensive to another person because they were not deemed personally offensive to the reader (6%); and (3) authors brought unprofessional comments upon themselves as they submitted substandard work (5%). Here, we argue against these themes as justifications for directing unprofessional comments towards authors during the peer review process. We argue that it is possible to be both critical and professional, and that no author deserves to be the recipient of demeaning ad hominem attacks regardless of supposed provocation. Suggesting otherwise only serves to propagate a toxic culture within peer review. While we previously postulated that establishing a peer-reviewer code of conduct could help improve the peer-review system, we now posit that priority should be given to repairing the negative cultural zeitgeist that exists in peer-review.

我们最近的论文（https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00096-x）报告了43％的评论者评论集（n= 1491）与作者分享，其中至少包含一项不专业的评论或不完全，不准确的未经证实的评论（IIUC）。这项工作的发表引发了同行评议中围绕专业性的在线对话（即Twitter，Instagram，Facebook和Reddit）。我们收集并分析了这些社交媒体评论，因为它们提供了对我们工作的实时响应，并提供了对评论者和潜在的同行评审者所持观点的见解，这些观点很难使用现有的经验工具进行量化（从7月24日至9月，有96条评论2020年3月3日）。总体而言，有75％的评论是正面的，其中59％的观点是支持的，而16％的观点是相似的。但是，出现了一些负面评论（22％的负面评论和6％的评论对该方法没有根据），这提供了对同行评审过程中做出非专业评论的原因的潜在见解。这些评论分为三个主要主题：（1）强迫友好将对同行评审过程产生不利影响，并允许发表质量不佳的科学（占在线评论的5％）；（2）将评论视为对他人不具有冒犯性，因为它们不被视为对读者个人冒犯（6％）；（3）作者在提交不合格作品（5％）时对自己提出了非专业的评论。在这里，我们反对这些主题，作为在同行评审过程中将非专业评论指向作者的理由。我们认为，批评性和专业性都是可能的，没有作者值得贬低人为攻击，而不管所谓的挑衅。否则建议只能在同行评议中传播有毒文化。虽然我们先前假设建立同行评议者行为准则可以帮助改善同行评议制度，但现在我们认为应该优先考虑修复同行评议中存在的消极文化时代精神。