An Inside Look at Peer-Review: The Lived Experience of Thinking In Pictures in Self-Declared Autistic Adults
In the field of ‘autism research,’ much has been written about cognitive differences, particularly in how autistic people process and engage with the world around them. One such area of interest is the phenomenon of “thinking in pictures”—a cognitive style where visual thinking dominates over verbal thought. Whilst Temple Grandin's famous accounts have provided some insight into this way of thinking, relatively few studies have focused on the lived experiences of other autistics who 'think in pictures. In this preprint, “The Lived Experience of Thinking in Pictures in Self-Declared Autistic Adults,” the authors explore first-hand narratives of visual thinking shared by individuals self-identifying as autistic. Drawing from an online community, they analyse how these individuals describe their cognitive processes and the challenges and strengths that come with thinking in pictures.
As part of the journey to academic publication, this paper will undergo peer review—a process essential for validating and refining the research. In today’s, I will take you inside this critical stage, highlighting the feedback and critique that may shape the final paper. Peer review not only strengthens the rigor of a study but also ensures that the findings contribute meaningfully to the broader understanding of autism. By revealing this process, I aim to offer transparency into how academic work evolves and the standards it must meet to be accepted by the scientific community.
The Raw Commentary
To assess how “The Lived Experience of Thinking in Pictures in Self-Declared Autistic Adults” might fare in an eventual peer review, we can break down several important factors that peer reviewers typically evaluate in modern journals:
Novelty and Contribution to the Field
Strengths: The paper focuses on a relatively underexplored area of ‘autism research:’ first-person narratives about visual thinking from self-declared autistic adults. Whilst visual thinking has been discussed in autism literature (e.g., Temple Grandin’s accounts), this study uses a qualitative method to gather diverse lived experiences from an online community. This would likely be seen as an original contribution to understanding cognitive diversity in autism, particularly the practical challenges of thinking in pictures.
Challenges: One potential critique is that “thinking in pictures” has been explored before, and the study needs to ensure that it offers novel insights beyond what is already known. Furthermore, the use of ‘self-declared’ or self-diagnosed autistic participants could raise concerns by the mainstream journals about the generalisability and validity of the findings.
Methodology
Strengths: The qualitative approach (content analysis of forum posts) aligns well with the study’s aim of exploring first-hand experiences. Qualitative methods are increasingly accepted in autism research, particularly for capturing subjective lived experiences.
Challenges: One likely critique in peer review could centre around the data source: ‘WrongPlanet.net,’ a forum where users self-identify as autistic. Reviewers might question the lack of formal diagnosis verification, which journals could say impact the validity of the findings. Additionally, since the study relies on self-reported data from an online forum, concerns about data representativeness, potential biases, and the reliability of self-diagnosis could arise. Reviewers might also ask for more clarity on how the authors ensured rigour in the content analysis (e.g., coding reliability, checking for biases in interpretation).
Ethical Considerations
Strengths: The paper does follow standard ethical practices, such as not collecting personal identifiers and informing the forum community about the research. The anonymity and confidentiality of the participants seem to be preserved.
Challenges: Reviewers may point out the ethical limitation of using data from online communities where the formal consent process might not be as robust as in traditional research. The authors did inform the forum members about the research, but the level of consent for using their data could still be questioned.
Engagement with Existing Literature
Strengths: The paper engages well with key theories and studies on visual thinking, including Temple Grandin’s autobiographical accounts and research on visual processing in autism. It draws connections to empirical research on visual-spatial abilities in autism and aligns its findings with existing work.
Challenges: Peer reviewers might push the authors to engage more deeply with alternative explanations for their findings, including other cognitive styles common in autism (e.g., gestalt processing, etc.). They may also ask for a clearer positioning of the study within broader discussions of cognitive diversity in autism, especially given that not all autistic individuals think in pictures.
Relevance to Modern Journals on Autism
Potential Outlets: Journals such as ‘Autism,’ ‘Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,’ and ‘Molecular Autism’ typically seek studies that either contribute significantly to theoretical models or offer practical implications for education, healthcare, or social understanding.
Strengths: This paper’s findings could be seen as relevant for educational strategies (how to teach visual thinkers), communication strategies, or therapeutic interventions for autistic individuals who predominantly think in pictures. Journals with an interest in lived experiences or cognitive diversity (like ‘Autism in Adulthood’) might welcome this study.
Challenges: However, mainstream autism journals that focus on quantitative data and interventions may critique the study for its reliance on a qualitative, self-reported sample. The practical implications of the findings would need to be more robustly articulated for such journals.
Overall Impact
Strengths: The paper would likely be positively received for contributing to the understanding of cognitive diversity and for using first-person narratives to explore an aspect of autism that is less commonly studied. This aligns with the current push in autism research to include the voices and perspectives of autistic individuals in shaping research outcomes.
Challenges: On the flip side, the reliance on self-reported data from self-declared autistic individuals could weaken its impact, as journals and peer reviewers often favor studies with more rigorous inclusion criteria (e.g., confirmed clinical diagnoses).
Conclusion: Potential Outcomes
In peer review, this paper may face scrutiny regarding its methodology (self-reported data from an online forum) and the representativeness of the sample. However, if published in the right venue—especially one open to qualitative studies and first-person narratives in autism research—it could fare well due to its unique exploration of cognitive diversity in autism.
The paper’s chances of acceptance may improve with a stronger discussion of the limitations and more robust justifications for the chosen methodology.
The paper would likely be well-received in journals that emphasise qualitative research, autistic voices, and cognitive diversity in autism, such as ‘Autism in Adulthood’ or ‘Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.’ However, in more ‘intervention-focused’ or quantitatively driven journals, the methodology might face more challenges.
Commentary
The Autism Industrial Complex thrives on the commodification of autistic individuals, prioritising profit over the actual lived experiences of those it claims to support. Companies within this industry, eager to capture federal funding and dominate the market for autism therapies and interventions, show little interest in the voices of autistic people themselves. The study is a prime example of work that holds no commercial value to these profit-driven entities. Why? Because it focuses on the subjective, nuanced experiences of autistic individuals, exploring their cognitive diversity rather than offering another product to “fix” or “treat” them.
For the Autism Industrial Complex, lived experiences and cognitive diversity aren't marketable assets. These corporations, like the ones hungry for Autism CARES Act funding, are not driven by a desire to understand autistic people on our own terms, but rather to mold us into more “productive” versions that align with neurotypical standards. The complexity and humanity in studies like this one simply don’t translate into financial gain. Instead, the industry focuses on interventions, early detection, and “solutions” that perpetuate deficit-based models of autism, catering to an agenda of profit rather than empowerment or understanding. True support for autistic individuals, as revealed in this research, remains secondary to the relentless pursuit of market expansion.
The commercial indifference toward lived experience in favor of treatment underscores how little the Autism Industrial Complex truly cares about autistic voices.
The Value of Open Access
Given the content and focus of the study, the likelihood of its publication in ‘mainstream’ autism journals appears limited. Whilst the study provides valuable insights into the cognitive experiences of autistic individuals, its qualitative methodology and reliance on self-reported, self-declared autistic individuals may not meet the rigorous standards preferred by high-impact autism journals that often emphasise empirical, quantitative research. Additionally, the focus on lived experiences, rather than on marketable interventions or diagnostic tools, may not align with the interests of journals more attuned to research with clinical or commercial implications.
The fact that the paper is already hosted on HAL—an open-access platform for preprints—signals that the authors may have anticipated the challenges in securing publication in traditional peer-reviewed outlets. HAL offers a valuable space for this research to be accessible to those interested in cognitive diversity and the nuanced, subjective experiences of autistic individuals. However, the study’s placement on HAL will likely remain its most prominent platform for dissemination. Whilst it may be appreciated by academic researchers and those within the neurodiversity movement, it is unlikely to gain the traction needed for broader journal publication, given its deviation from the interventionist and commercially driven focus often seen in autism-related research. Thus, HAL is likely where it will stay, serving as a critical but niche resource for those seeking to understand autism beyond a purely clinical lens.