Do journal editors/referees expect relatively unknown authors to provide evidence of counsel from an expert when submitting a paper?

Question

The reason I've brought up this question is due to the following observation.

Let's say, for instance, there is some field which is called "Specific Grand Theory". The field is quite minor and only A,B,C are the reputable experts regarding the field.

Reading some published papers from young researchers concerning the "Specific Grand Theory", someone observes every of those young researchers shows a gratitude to one of those A,B,C at the 'Acknowledgement' section.

So that 'someone' begins to suspect that whether there is an implicit rule in that field which demands for a young researcher to consult one of the experts before publishing his/her own paper to the field. Otherwise, that 'someone' should worry about the acceptance rate of his/her submitted paper for not getting stamped with authentication by the experts around the field.

The hypothetical situation I described above is similar to what I'm facing. I think that even assuming this kind of custom do exist in some fields, it shall vary field by field. The field I'm particularly interested is one of discrete mathematics. However, if you have your own experience with my question in your field, I would also like to hear your opinion.

Added:

I have an additional question. I may assume that the hypothetical situation I've described above exists, leaving aside whether it results from the custom in that subdiscipline or just a coincidence by the closeness of network.

Then, in the eye of journal editors, would not getting some authentication mark by the experts affect the credibility of the newly submitted papers compared to other papers which got its stamps from those experts?

I'm particularly concerning this, in mathematics, many of the papers are left unread if they give some air of crackpots.

I wonder the opinions from journal editors or reviewers whether not having some authentication mark unlike others will have possibilities to affect the credibility of the submitted paper in some minor fields.

Answer 1

Short answer: no

Longer answer: in small fields many of the junior researchers will be PhD students or postdocs with either expert A, B, or C. Since the advisor often comments on articles before they are published or are in another way helpful, they end up in the acknowledgement section.

Maybe there is a really supportive culture in that subdiscipline and the experts are really generous with their time, and thus often end up in the acknowledgement section.

Answer 2

For the record: My area is math, I had served as a managing editor for 3 journals, currently just for one. I also edited proceedings of several conferences.

As an editor/referee I pay very little/no attention to acknowledgements when evaluating a paper (with one exception that I discuss below). As an editor, I either know the specific research area of the paper well enough to evaluate if it is at the level of the journal after a quick look through it (which includes eliminating crockpot papers) or I ask for an "expert quick opinion" instead.

Now, for the exception. In general, I prefer to receive a quick opinion or a referee report from a person who is not too close to the author(s) of the paper, to ensure impartiality. If the author thanks all three main experts in the area, my job, as an editor, becomes more difficult.

Answer 3

Do journal editors/referees expect relatively unknown authors to provide evidence of counsel from an expert when submitting a paper?

No, but ...

No: Whether there is evidence of a mentor is not considered by the editors.

But: Whether the paper shows understanding of the field is important. One way (not the only way) to learn the ins and outs of a field is through a mentor.

And a corollary: "Name dropping" a famous person will not rescue a bad paper from rejection.

Answer 4

I agree with the No answer above. Adding names to the acknowledgment section will not alter your acceptance rate.

However, some authors do play games with acknowledgments: assume one is in conflict with profs. A, B, C. One does not want them to review the manuscript as it would reduce the chances of acceptance. Therefore, one acknowledges them! Next, the editor reads these acknowledgments and does not consider A, B, or C as potential referees (see the last paragraph in the answer of @MoisheKohan). After the manuscript has been reviewed by other unproblematic referees and already accepted, one removes acknowledgments while in the proofs stage.

It remains to be said that I do not support such practice.