As editors, should we have an optimistic attitude towards the documents we review, or should we be pessimistic?
If we follow an optimistic approach, then:
- Every document is well-written and ticks all boxes.
- Every good point in the doc strengthens the belief in the inherent goodness of the document.
- Every bad point will harm the assumptions slightly but not too much.
On the other hand, a pessimistic approach will be something like:
- Every document is a poorly written one and does not meet the requirements.
- Since I start off on a negative scale, every bad point in the doc will reinforce my belief in this ‘bad’ document.
- Every good point will be attributed to an unintentional item by the author.
In the end, if I start at zero, my approach will tend to skew towards the positive for an optimistic review and negatively for a pessimistic one.
So walking that fine line between the two approaches would be the challenge and also one that would result in a win-win scenario for everyone.