Timeline for Questionable peer review practice in top-tier journal
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2023 at 13:36 | comment | added | High GPA | I only have one comment: in my opinion, any paper with one serious flaw is not publishable on any serious journal. Could you please explain why this seriously flawed paper is already good enough for a top field journal? | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 17:50 | answer | added | EarlGrey | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 13:25 | answer | added | WojciechF | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 21:43 | comment | added | user71659 | @Shidouuu It's not bias as much as inexperience and being wowed: OP doesn't know how PNAS's contribution system works (something that multiple people easily identified), and PNAS isn't top-tier, it's high-mid at best. (If you're going to blindly apply impact factors, it's 2/3 of Nature Communications and within 10% of something like Optica) | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 16:58 | comment | added | R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE | I'm baffled at how the OP seems to think the paper is "worth publishing" (having novelty, relevance, no disqualifying things like serious methodological flaws etc.) but only "deserves" to be published in a lower-impact journal. The "good ol' boys club" is people like OP who are trying to deny less-senior researchers avenues for publication, not those researchers who collaborated with someone more senior supposedly as a means of getting published. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 7:42 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 6, 2023 at 13:36 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2023 at 7:32 | comment | added | Shidouuu | This question just reeks with personal bias. There will never, EVER be a solid answer to these types of questions because it is impossible for the poster to give sensitive information required to accurately solve their problem. It also goes against the stackexchange philosophy since they are so vague for a specific problem. These questions should be flagged and closed. | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 18:06 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 30, 2023 at 12:45 | comment | added | silvado | @AnonymousPhysicist I had the exact same experience with a PNAS Invited Article indeed. Probably for good reason they discontinued this manuscript category. | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 8:41 | comment | added | EarlGrey | @mrp unless the top-ranking journal is on a downhill path because they keep on publishnig inferior methods ... "top-ranking" is not set in stone, if you are in the community, you know what really is top-ranking ... | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 5:49 | answer | added | user71659 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 3:17 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | Are we talking about PNAS? This would fit with their reputation. | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 3:16 | answer | added | Anonymous Physicist | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 21:38 | comment | added | mrp | @EarlGrey I disagree. If method A is inferior to method B because of fundamental flaws, but gets published in a top-ranking journal while method B does not, method A is given undue credibility. | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 15:23 | vote | accept | mrp | ||
| Nov 29, 2023 at 12:30 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 29, 2023 at 12:04 | comment | added | EarlGrey | "The manuscript was of reasonable quality and worth publishing in a specialized journal" Enough said. The editor perceives its own journal as a publishing venue for specialized articels. It is up to them if 3 years down the line other journals will be " broad, high-impact" and their journal will just be a specialized venue... you do not have much to do with these strategic decisions. | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 11:18 | answer | added | thosphor | timeline score: 14 | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 11:09 | answer | added | Sylvain Ribault | timeline score: 12 | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 5:44 | comment | added | JRN | "I think it is pretty obvious that the manuscript was accepted [..] not based on peer review." If so, then why did it undergo three rounds of review? Why not accept the paper after just one round? | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 3:22 | answer | added | sErISaNo | timeline score: 40 | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 1:37 | comment | added | user126108 | @mrp: you say “a couple of serious flaws that, in my opinion, made it unacceptable for a broad, high-impact journal”: why would the journal “impact” matter? Either the flaws are serious and should be corrected prior to publication, or they are not and then should not be a barrier to publication. | |
| Nov 29, 2023 at 1:17 | comment | added | Dawn | Related story from economics: statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/01/25/… | |
| Nov 28, 2023 at 23:58 | comment | added | Buffy | You are making a pretty strong assumption along with the accusation: "pretty obvious". | |
| Nov 28, 2023 at 23:50 | comment | added | Allure | academia.stackexchange.com/questions/135326/… Closely related, maybe duplicate. | |
| Nov 28, 2023 at 23:11 | history | asked | mrp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |