Joe Lindley

Don’t let peer review walk the plank

I spent 7 years and £2m on a mission to show the world the value of Design Research. Then my paper was desk rejected. Apparently so low quality it was unreviewable. Perhaps I'm deluded, perhaps I'm deranged, but through the rejection process and the conversation about what constitutes grounds for desk rejection I had with the paper’s chair, something felt out of kilter. I worry slightly that the delusions are real, and my seven-year mission has been a waste of time. But is there a chance something else is going on? In 8 minutes of hyperbole I will give you what you need to draw your own conclusion by (1) presenting the rejected paper itself — something about a huge data grab, GenAI, and most of its supposedly new questions about creativity actually being old hat; (2) speculate that my paper wasn't rejected on merit, but got swept up in the logistical chaos of a conference drowning under a post-AI spike in submissions; and (3) argue that the spirit and sanctity of peer review is one of the most special things academia has, and should be protected fiercely against the GenAI maelstrom.