1

In ScholarOne, if there are conflicting opinions on a specific paper under review, would several other members of the editorial board (not just the assigned reviewers) converse on the given article?

I think that if a paper has aroused several conflicting opinions by the assigned peer-reviewers, several other members of the board would participate in the conversation, discussing with each other "behind the scene" by emails etc. on whether the paper should be published or not. Would this happen before the editor-in-chief's decision? I have a fourth article under review and would like to know the general prassi behind the scenes.

In short, what I am thinking, would, in a conflicting situation, some other members of the board participate to a kind of an unformal, "virtual" conversation inside the ScholarOne, and then the last decision would be made.

closed as unclear what you're asking by jakebeal, Enthusiastic Engineer, scaaahu, yo', JeffE Dec 3 '15 at 11:04

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Can you please try to clarify what you are asking? I'm rather confused by your statement about intending to have editors have a conversation about your paper. – jakebeal Dec 2 '15 at 18:47
  • 1
    @Anna, I've attempted to clarify the question while keeping intact what I believe you're is asking. Please revert or edit the question further if I was wrong. – Ric Dec 2 '15 at 19:09
  • I apologize to have been unclear, jakebeal and Ric. Yes, I intended to ask what Ric clarified: if the decision of the acceptance of the paper is conflicting, is it a normal custom by other members of the board to discuss on the paper's qualities, and with these other members I meant other individuals than those who actually are peer-reviewing the paper. Thank you for editing the question. – Anna Dec 3 '15 at 12:59
  • I am logging into the system 3-4 times a day, and when the status of the paper changes, my imagination gets probably too lively. At times I have been thinking, when the final decision is delaying, that some other members of the board would participate to a kind of an unformal, "virtual" conversation inside the ScholarOne (I have so far embodied only "author" status, so I dont know other status' roles in the process), behind the curtains, upon a decision of a conflicting paper. This is just my personal curiosity, I would like to know how they really work. – Anna Dec 3 '15 at 13:18
3

I'm sure YMMV, but there is usually an Associate Editor (a member of the Board to whom the paper was assigned) that will make a recommendation to the Editor based on the reviews. The conversation you refer to usually takes place between the two of them. If an additional review is needed to decide, it can be requested. The rest of the Board is usually not involved (they have their own assignments to worry about). As an author you may or may not know who the Associate Editor assigned to your paper is.

  • Thank you Prof. Martinez, this is what I wanted to know. I was thinking, if in such a conflicting situation, some other members of the board would participate to a kind of an unformal, "virtual" conversation inside the ScholarOne (I have so far embodied only "author" status, so I dont know other status' roles in the process), behind the curtains, upon a decision of a conflicting paper. This clarified my question well, thank you. I am very interested on these particulars, on these processes how does the paper actually move through different hands. – Anna Dec 3 '15 at 13:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.