On 02/05/15 19:07, Robert Stevenson 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.
You've already been pointed to COPE, which is an excellent resource (and
a great tie suck if you get caught in the case studies).
Irene Hames' book "Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific
Journals" is good if you want more detail:
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470750803>
Appendix I is a checklist of what to do (and not do!), and is free
online, from the link.
Bob
--
Bob O'Hara
Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre
Senckenberganlage 25
D-60325 Frankfurt am Main,
Germany
Tel: +49 69 7542 1863
Mobile: +49 1515 888 5440
WWW: http://www.bik-f.de/root/index.php?page_id=219
Blog: http://blogs.nature.com/boboh
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
