Emails and miscommunications…

Emails and miscommunications…

Vijay Gopichandran


Emails can grossly mislead the tone and tenor of the content written in them. How we interpret the content of an email strongly depends on our state of mind at the time when we read the email. I have experienced this several times. However, email communication has become inevitable in today's’ digital world. Recently, I faced a problem with a colleague of mine with whom I had email communications regarding a manuscript I had submitted for peer review in a journal. There were misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what was written in the emails on both our parts. This led to some bitterness which we are currently addressing (…or not addressing).


A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for consideration for publication in a reputed journal. It was a commissioned piece, my colleague who works for the journal had invited me to write the piece. After substantial work and several drafts, I prepared the manuscript and submitted it. My colleague is a thorough professional when it comes to editing and reviewing manuscripts. The colleague read this manuscript in detail and wrote to me an initial response. It was a thorough line by line review of the manuscript. The colleague’s comments were so thorough – there were close to 50 (this is an underestimate) comments. Initially, it was overwhelming to read the comments. But then I have a lot of respect for this colleague and their work. So, I sat with the comments overnight and addressed each of them. I made corrections based on more than 35 of these comments and responded to the remaining 15 with reasons why I do not propose to make changes. Some of these 15 comments which I did not address were asking me to write in greater detail about a background assumption that I had made. Every manuscript begins with a certain basic assumption. We assume that the readers are of a certain level of understanding about the subject before we write the article. If every article were to start with the assumption that the reader is naïve, then it is not possible to write concise commentaries. So, I had responded using the words, “I am not explaining this point in detail because it is assumed that the reader will know this. I have provided references for the reader to explore this more”. I came to know later that my colleague found this dismissive of their skill as an editor and reviewer. This was the first major misunderstanding.


After this, my colleague did the professional thing and forwarded the manuscript to the next level, which is peer review. During peer review, the expert reads the article and critically comments on it. My colleague diligently chose the right reviewer and forwarded my paper to them. The reviewer wrote an elaborate commentary, and this was forwarded to me by my colleague. The reviewer was thorough and unlike the 50+ comments that I had originally received from my colleague, this time it was not so elaborate. The comments were manageable. However, I had several disagreements with the reviewer’s point of view. The reviewer had made some statements that were argumentative. The reviewer had phrased some of their comments as rhetorical questions – which often implies a tone of “don’t you know this?”. The reviewer, without considering the fact that I might have some basic knowledge about what I am writing had suggested that I read more and gave references. When a reviewer apart from engaging with arguments is also raising rhetorical questions and suggesting that I read up on certain areas before writing, I, as someone with some self-respect will definitely respond with my counter-arguments.


So I wrote back to my colleague with the response to the reviewer, befitting the kind of review that they had provided to me. My whole argument was with the reviewer. Even in the response document, I only expressed my strong arguments against the points raised by the reviewer but never said anything disrespectful or derogatory. My arguments were against the reviewer’s points of view, but not against the reviewer themselves. The problem started after my colleague read my response to the reviewer. My colleague wrote back an email to me in which they made some very hurtful statements to me personally about my writing and my way of responding to the reviewer. My colleague sounded very condescending because my colleague found it appropriate to preach to me about how I should respect the reviewer and how I should be more polite in my response. My colleague had taken my argument with the reviewer as a personal affront. I was very much hurt by what my colleague had written to me in that email.


I always doubt myself whenever someone confronts me with such complaints about anything they felt I did wrong. So I went back and read and re-read my response many times. I re-wrote my response to the reviewer more politely. I wrote an apology to my colleague and mailed my revised response letter, in which I had been polite, self-explanatory, but also took a firm stand on my arguments. I had noticed that the reviewer had spent a major part of their comments on one example that I had used, which did not sound agreeable to them. That example is often found to be sensitive by many commentators. Previously my colleague had also commented strongly about that example. So in order to retain the focus on the main argument of the article, I removed that example and replaced it with a new one. My colleague again found this dismissive of the reviewer’s viewpoint. My colleague found this once again as a personal insult to them, rather than a debate between the author and the reviewer.


Yesterday, my colleague has forwarded the revised manuscript along with my response, back to the reviewer for their comment. But my colleague also wrote an email to me saying why I am so wrong in how I handled this issue. The colleague accused me of being condescending to the reviewer, of responding to the reviewer like ‘an older teacher responding to a young student who wrote a bad essay’. My students know how I respond to even the worst written essay. I respond to them patiently, politely and in a manner of constructive criticism. I felt very hurt by what my colleague wrote about me as a teacher. I once again apologized to the colleague, because I had obviously touched a very sensitive nerve. But I am not at all sorry for any of the things that I did during this peer-review process. I am not perfect, but I know I am not a “rude old professor who trashes the bad writing of a student”. I am also highly disappointed that while my colleague chose to see my comments as rude and patronizing they refused to read the same note in the comments of the reviewer or their own note when they wrote it to me the first time.


This whole exercise taught me once again, that emails can be very difficult unless drafted carefully. Here are some tips for writing effective emails or any form of written communication that does not miscommunicate what we want to express:

1.      It is useful to read out the email loudly once before clicking the send button. Hearing what we have written, often helps to see the tone and tenor of the written word.

2.      I sometimes draft my emails and revisit them after a break, if I think the email is very important. Ideally, a 10 – 15 mins break helps get new perspectives on the same written matter.

3.      I also carefully look for colloquialisms. They are not universal. For example, “What???” is something people write. This what can have several meanings, it can mean condescension, concern, dismissal. So it is very important to avoid colloquialisms unless it is very obvious.

4.      I also try to keep my sentences brief. Brief sentences may sometimes sound curt. But they are always clearer and less subject to misinterpretations.

5.      I start the email or article with a positive tone. For example, if I am going to bash the reviewer’s comments, I would start by thanking the reviewer. Starting with a thank you and an encouraging note reduce the intensity of the blow that I am giving.

Some tips for reading emails effectively:

1.      I do not assume the worst in emails. I give the benefit of doubt to the writer and to the fact that emails are often impersonal.

2.      I read the email at least 2-3 times before I respond to it. If it is a problematic email I read it after a break of 10 mins.

3.      Lastly, if the person is important to me, if it feels that the email has led to miscommunication, I get in touch with the person through a text or a call.