0

It seems that a paper has been peer-reviewed and then rejected again, which is weird:

An "independent, internal review" had "identified a number of issues with the peer-review and revision process," a new note reads, leading the editors to put the paper on hold and "examine whether the editors can rectify the problems." Podvig declined to elaborate but says: "In hindsight we probably should have sent it to a different set of reviewers."

Is this normal, and also, can a journal reject a paper without giving the exact reasons as to why it was done? The paper in question was being held back following an “independent internal review of the editorial process” which threw up unidentified “issues” with the peer-review and revision process, but they didn't specify what they were. The non-transparency is a cause for concern and seems to be very unusual.

8
  • 4
    This question appears to be far less about the peer review process and more about prompting a discussion about the paper described in the linked article, and that's not going to be on-topic here.
    – Bryan Krause
    Dec 7, 2022 at 23:30
  • 5
    irrespective of the paper in question: (1) "it has been peer-reviewed and then rejected again, which is weird" - not really.. (2) "can a journal reject a paper without giving the exact reasons as to why it was done?" - yes - they can do pretty much whatever they want
    – Mark
    Dec 8, 2022 at 0:09
  • 1
    Voting to reopen because the question as-asked doesn't ask about the details of the paper.
    – Allure
    Dec 8, 2022 at 3:45
  • 2
    @Allure Yes, it does. It references some political process and mystery specific to this paper, and OP is posting elsewhere on the network about this issue with Syria, that's their interest, not academic norms.
    – Bryan Krause
    Dec 8, 2022 at 4:23
  • 3
    @BryanKrause no, the question is It seems that it has been peer-reviewed and then rejected again, which is weird. Is this normal, and also, can a journal reject a paper without giving the exact reasons as to why it was done? which is a question about academic norms. If you're basing your decision to close this on what Sayaman has been doing elsewhere on the network, I'd say that's ad hominen. Furthermore, being interested in this particular political process ought to not preclude one from asking questions about it.
    – Allure
    Dec 8, 2022 at 4:40

1 Answer 1

3

There're a couple of questions in the OP:

  • Is this normal?

No, it's not normal. Most papers are not rejected after they are accepted. However, it can happen. One relatively common reason for this is plagiarism detected after acceptance. Similarly, other kinds of academic misconduct can result in such rejection, e.g. if one of the co-authors write in saying they didn't consent to their name being on the paper.

However, it's also worth pointing out that many papers are retracted after publication. In terms of the end state, this is effectively the same as rejecting it after acceptance. It's common for papers to be retracted if their validity is contested. Wrong papers will often stay published, but if the flaws are such that it should arguably never have been published in the first place, then retraction can happen. See Wikipedia.

  • Can a journal reject a paper without giving the exact reasons as to why it was done?

Journals can pretty much do whatever they want - nothing is published without the editors' consent, after all. But it's rare to reject a paper without giving reasons. Usually the editor will say at least something, even when the paper is desk rejected without review.

Finally:

The paper in question was being held back following an “independent internal review of the editorial process” which threw up unidentified “issues” with the peer-review and revision process, but they didn't specify what they were. The non-transparency is a cause for concern and seems to be very unusual.

This is pretty normal whenever there's a peer review failure. (What is unusual is there being a peer review failure in the first place.) In this scenario, the editor/publisher will investigate what exactly happened. Questions such as who handled the paper, who reviewed the paper, what exactly did they say, are they qualified to review the paper, etc. are all critical ones to answer. An "independent review" of the editorial process generally means someone who isn't involved in the original peer review now looks over the editor's work to see if it's up to standard. Since "issues" were discovered, the original work was probably not up to standard. The result - the paper being rejected - is a sign that in the new person's opinion, the paper should not have been published in the first place.

As for transparency: it's common to not reveal what exactly happened in the peer review process. Peer review is anonymous for a reason. If you reveal what happened, then you break anonymity, with a variety of possible results. You might be able to reveal some details (example) but if the people involved don't want to be named, then their identities really need to be kept under wraps.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .