Some good thoughts by Malcolm. Just one thing I’d like to add. More and more recently I have seen editors abdicate their responsibility to evaluate not just the manuscript, but the reviewers’ opinions. Sending a revision back to the same reviewers for “re-review” can be useful in some cases, but it is way overused IMO. The reviewers are not necessarily right, and it is the editor’s job to evaluate both sides after seeing a revision and the authors’ rebuttal. If the editor has been selected wisely by the assigning editor (doesn’t always happen either), he/she should be competent to do this.
Example: I recently had an editor say (paraphrase) “The reviewers don’t like your revision, so I have no choice but to reject.” Gong… Don McKenzie Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Lab US Forest Service [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > >> On May 2, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Malcolm McCallum >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> A SHORT GUIDE TO ETHICAL EDITING FOR NEW EDITORS >> http://publicationethics.org/files/short%20guide%20to%20ethical%20editing%20for%20new%20editors.pdf >> >> <http://publicationethics.org/files/short%20guide%20to%20ethical%20editing%20for%20new%20editors.pdf> >> >> COPE Guidelines >> http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines >> >> In regard to editor responsibilities, when I handle a paper, I feel it is >> my responsibility to screen out comments that are inappropriate, or ignore >> clearly biased reviews. Further, as an editor, the peer reviews are >> recommendations and the journal need not be bound to the comments the >> reviewers provided. Truthfully, after handling peer review for hundreds of >> papers, most peer reviews seem to be pretty professional undertakings. >> However, I have seen my fair share of comments that were clearly personal >> biases based not on the substance of the article. As the editor, if they >> were trite comments, I frankly deleted them. Insults and incendiary >> comments have no place in a peer review. IF the reviewer was clearly >> biased, I tossed the review and got a new one. THere have been a handful >> of papers (and I am talking maybe 5-6 in my 10 years of editing in which >> 2-3 reviewers all agreed on something that was just plain wrong. I >> attribute this to random chance. In each of these cases, the author was >> instructed to confront the comment and defend in their article their >> approach in light of the comment, which was frankly VERY EASY to do. I >> have also noticed that often, reviewers will make statements like, "how is >> this possible?" or "this makes no sense" where a second person will find it >> very difficult to infer what the problem is. In such cases, the comment >> could be directed at writing (cumbersome prose that is difficult to >> interpret) or criticism of the underlying deductions or theories. In most >> cases, however, the response by the author really needed to involve >> clarification of what they mean. There is a very delicate balance between >> conciseness and lack of details. As an editor, I feel it is important to >> clarify for the author/s how the journal would like the author/s to handle >> the peer review comments. I recall one (shall remain nameless) friend of >> mine who once advised me that the editor needs to use common sense with >> reviews. This individual told me of a paper that was submitted to <big >> name top tier journal> and when the reviews came back, the editor handed my >> friend the reviews and told him basically, "Reviewer #2 can be largely >> ignored, but I'm giving you the review because you might want to confront >> some of the comments in the manuscrpt." I would have simply deleted the >> garbage and sumarized the review based on what was needed. It is equally >> important to make sure the author sees the compliments too. It is good for >> a reviewer to approach articles with a list of what is good about it, what >> is bad about it, and what is borderline. The same thing with editors. >> >> Before I was an editor, I used to think that editors should follow the >> recommendations of the reviewers 100% of the time. My views changed after >> doing it. The comments from reviewers can be quite amazing. The editors >> control what is published, not the peer reviewers. WHy? Because it is >> his-her reptuation on the line if a paper gets published that was just >> plain bad. An editor should be choosing peer reviewers for a reason. For >> example, if I recieve a paper on spatial modeling of cricket frog >> pathologies in the United States (a completely made up example), I want to >> know if the spatial modeling and pathologies have been approached >> properly. Having done my doctoral work on cricket frogs, and published a >> lot of papers on them, so it might not be necessary to use a cricket frog >> biologist. I would snag a GIS scientist and an amphibian pathologist to >> review it, and if necessary a cricket frog bioologist as the third >> reviewer. Such an approach really reduces the probability of biases and >> conflicts within a small field/group. GIS and pathology are pretty big >> areas, whereas, there are not really that large of a group of cricket frog >> experts on the planet! :) >> >> The number of reviews can be inadequate simply because obtaining reviewers >> can be so difficult. Some editors might feel your manuscript would not >> benefit from a review by someone who simply has no background in anyway >> related to the paper. Others will. Imagine a scenario (actually happened >> in a generalized impact rating > 4 journal!) where you submit a paper on >> developing microsatellites to Journal X, the editor sends it to two random >> reviewers the reviews who perform legit well-thought-out reviews but one's >> career pre-dates the use of microsattelites, and the other is a physicist. >> One good review is worth a hundred reviews-for-the-sake-of-reviews. With >> a lot of people refusing to review paper, it can sometimes be a task just >> to get one solid reviewer. Remember, reviewers are more a kind of SOP for >> QA/QC than they are police. They don't really guard much, but they do >> reduce the chances of a mess up in the process. >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Robert Stevenson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear All >>> >>> Occasionally editors do a poor job of managing the review process for a >>> paper submitted to a scientific journal - the number of reviews is >>> inadequate, the reviews themselves seem to be based on biased opinion >>> rather than objective criticism, etc. >>> >>> This can make it difficult for the paper to get a fair evaluation and/or >>> it can be a misunderstanding by the author of the explicit or cultural >>> scope of the journal >>> >>> A quick google search did not turn up any general guide lines or code of >>> conduct for editors. Can anyone point me to documents that describes the >>> implicit trust, roles and responsibilities in the author-editor-reviewer >>> exchanges. >>> >>> Thanks? >>> >>> >>> Rob Stevenson >>> >>> UMass Boston >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP >> Environmental Studies Program >> Green Mountain College >> Poultney, Vermont >> Link to online CV and portfolio : >> https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO >> >> “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array >> of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a >> many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers >> alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” >> -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 >> into law. >> >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan >> Nation >> >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >> and pollution. >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >> MAY help restore populations. >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >> >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >> Wealth w/o work >> Pleasure w/o conscience >> Knowledge w/o character >> Commerce w/o morality >> Science w/o humanity >> Worship w/o sacrifice >> Politics w/o principle >> >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >> destroy all copies of the original message. > >
