There's been interesting things in the news lately regarding journal reviewers and accountability from editors. For example... http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/04/sexist-peer-review-elicits-furious-twitter-response
Additional food for thought. Cheers, Melissa On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Don McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > > > -- MA Scherr Ph.D. Entomology Northwest Entomological Research Center (541)602-6670 [email protected] *Northwest Entomological Research Center (NWERC) is an Oregon-based company founded in September of 2011. We are working to improve services available to industry and the public by providing insect identification, research, pest monitoring, and workshops throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Northern California. Additional information about NWERC and our programs can be found on our website at http://nwerc.org <http://nwerc.org/>. *
