Lob der Empfindlichkeit – Warum verletzende Kritik in Rezensionen der Wissenschaft schadet

Sensitivity as a quality criterion confirms the existing discourse rules for writing reviews to ensure good scientific practice. A sufficient corrective is provided by academic reflection on the reviewing process. Empathy research and communication psychology can provide new impetus for this. Reviews are often accompanied by bad feelings on the part of the reviewer. If the review is objective and lucid despite all criticism, if it fulfills its function of information and orientation, these feelings are to be accepted as part of an unavoidable power play. An uninterested or even affirmatively written work of convenience or embarrassment does not generate any emotions and remains bland. However, reviews contain and convey – in Schulz von Thun's categories – messages of self-revelation, the relational side and appeal more strongly than other forms of academic publication. There is also a place here for the undisguised or concealed attack on the person. It would be good to enrich the skills of writing, editing and reading reviews by recognizing and reflecting on the multidimensionality of the review as communication. Criticism motivated by »identity politics« falls into the realm of factual criticism. Factual information is given and evaluated, but often combined with a strong appeal. Such criticism can be sharply formulated, as can the response to it. Mutual respect is of particular importance in such a discussion. Every author has the opportunity to counter and categorize, for example in further academic publications or in their own reflections on science and the review system as a special form of academic publication. However, it is important to open up equal opportunities for counter-expression and classification. This is particularly difficult for authors of qualification papers, which in turn must be considered when writing a review.