Hot answers tagged

218

I think you are treading on thin ice, ethically speaking. Obviously you, as an editor, have no obligation to help the authors in any specific way, and you are free to tell them about your improvement or not, but rejecting their paper, taking the idea/problem, applying a different method to its resolution, and then publishing this under your own name seems ...


139

When you recommended rejection, you presumably listed a series of issues that made it unacceptable. On the revision, you go back and repeat the list of issues and simply say for each one, "The revision has/has not corrected this problem". If you reach the end of your list and all the issues have been corrected and no new issues have been introduced in the ...


127

If you are a seasoned reviewer you should know the rules, so falling back on being an inexperienced graduate student probably won't hold water. So clearly this was less a 'mistake' and more of a 'gamble'. You should pull the article from both venues and state -unequivocally- that your advisor had no knowledge. You didn't mention if your advisor was a co-...


127

This is not a major revision. Just change the value in the final version. (And explain to the editor in the cover letter that you are correcting a typo. A misplaced decimal point is essentially a typo.) You are not misrepresenting yourself in any way. Because you're explaining the change in the cover letter, you are giving the editor the chance to reject ...


110

I have a very simple solution to propose: Write a message directly to the other reviewer whom you would like to know. Address it to the reviewer, not to the editor. In the message, identify yourself and give your contact information. Ask the reviewer to contact you if they are interested. Send that message to the editor and ask the editor to please transfer ...


88

Fast is great! Just be warned that it means editors will like you and send you more requests so you’ll have to learn to say no. If you also say “no” quickly and suggest alternatives, then you’ll still leave a good impression with the editors.


81

The following screenshot is for Editorial Manager (used by Springer, Nature, APA, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, PLOS). The action links on the left are where everything is done. Brief explanation of some of the tabs: iThenticate is a program that checks for plagiarism. This particular submission has 16% similarity, which is low. If desired the editor can ...


74

EDIT: The question has been changed since this was written. Your key misconception is that the editor needs reviewers' permission to publish a paper. Actually, the decision to publish rests solely with the editor. In this case, you disagree with the editor, but we do not have enough information to tell who is correct. If you think the errors in the ...


72

From your answer, we can guess that you received a "major revision" decision. In that situation, your job is to modified your manuscript according to the reviewers' comments, not to try to find out who are the reviewers. Taken out of context, the comments you mention do not seem arrogant. Those comments are usual demands from reviewer, but I can't judge, not ...


71

This probably isn't something to fight over. Possibilities abound: Perhaps you misunderstood something. Perhaps the other reviewers were positive on the paper. Perhaps the authors provided arguments that your rejection reasons aren't applicable, and the editor found them convincing. Perhaps the editor thinks it's better to accept a potentially bad paper ...


70

I am a co-editor of an interdisciplinary journal (social sciences/humanities). I would rather an author withdraw and get the piece into shape than for us to either read it and have to desk reject, or to send to reviewers and they flag it. It's mildly embarrassing but like so many things in academia (and life), you will care more than they will care – it is ...


65

While you might be in the legal right, I think trying to publish when the author wants to withdraw is likely to be more trouble than it is worth for a small society journal. You probably don't have the resources to get into a protracted battle if the author decides to be really problematic (e.g., a lawsuit). As I see it, there are three reasonable ...


65

A "major revision" decision generally implies that, if the reviewers' concerns are addressed, the paper will probably be published. (See this related question, What does a "major revision" mean?) Sometimes when a paper is poorly written, it's hard for reviewers to judge its technical merits. (Because the presentation is so poor as to make it ...


61

The situation is sub-optimal, but not as bad as you seem to think. Remember that being an editor to a scientific journal, even one published by Elsevier, is often a volunteer job. Moreover, the editors have no control over how long the reviewers take to review your article. (which reminds me...) So what they gave you was only a guess. If the guess was wrong, ...


57

"Following a review of the manuscript by the editorial board, we have regretfully decided not to consider this work for publication. We thank you for your interest in our journal and..." This sounds like an editorial ("desk") reject more than anything else. Hence, there typically is no formal, written review that the editor could forward to you. It is just ...


53

Is this a field where author order is assumed to matter (e.g., applied CS)? If yes, this is completely unacceptable. If no, it is still very strange, but maybe not a big deal in the end. I can only imagine that your paper was handled by a very inexperienced technical editor who is simply not aware that the order of authors is not just a stylistic question, ...


53

If the paper is overall lousy then simply reject it. I'm sure the reviewers would give you plenty of reasons for this. However, if all it is, is a weak algorithm but otherwise well written, then it might still be worthy of publication (depends on the journal). Once published, you can then publish your own work and cite the paper. After all, your algorithm ...


52

You make the suggested changes, assuming you agree with them, and submit to another slightly less prestigious journal. Most likely, the editors didn't think your paper was interesting enough for their journal, and the reviewers weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the paper to convince them otherwise. At the top journals, for a paper to be accepted, it's ...


51

Submit somewhere else. The accept/reject decision is made by the editor, based on the recommendations of the referee(s). In this case, the editor felt that the referee's opinion of unsuitability, even without any explanation, was sufficient to reject. Maybe the editor felt that the unsuitability was self-evident upon inspection. Maybe the editor trusts ...


48

Your best course is to write your professor, both journals, explain your reason sincerely, and let them handle the situation as they see fit. Everyone make mistakes, and sometimes they are bad mistakes. In my opinion, trying to hide these mistakes or covering up would cost you more than the mistake itself in terms of academic reputation.


48

If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would: Reply as if the review were anonymous Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name


47

I wouldn't worry too much about tact. There's enough information in your question to identify the journal, and it looks impressively bad, even by the dismal standards of junk journals. It's so terrible that I'd consider it unethical to be actively involved as an editor, and humiliating to be passively involved. Bringing this to the editors' attention ...


47

In fact, I think that is the best choice! That guy is likely to know more about the subject, and be aware of previous attempted solutions.


46

the editors reject it on the basis of size of the reference list rather than focussing on the quality of the manuscript. I think that's a false distinction. From the view of the journal (and most publication outlets I know), one aspect of a manuscript's quality is that it needs to defend its novelty by appropriately considering related work. The feedback ...


44

If the journal is structured with a blinded review process, as most are in my experience, I would censor the name as an editor. Only if there is some sort of explicit journal policy allowing reviewers to unblind themselves would I consider not censoring the name.


43

In my view: Option 1 is fine. You are not required to do what a reviewer asks - if you choose not to do so you just need to explain why. Option 2 is not a good idea. You are required to respond to every comment made by a reviewer, regardless if you agree or disagree. Option 3 is also fine. This may be the safest bet - I am guessing you could probably even ...


43

You seem to misunderstand the review process. The authors are not obliged to follow your suggestions. Typically, when authors submit a revised version of their paper, they also include a 'response to reviews' in which they explain what they have done as a result of reviewer comments. If they wish, they can argue that certain comments or suggestions are ...


42

I don´t see the problem. Review it how you would review any other paper. If it is still (after the major revision) not up to the standards of the journal, recommend rejection.


42

That's generally not a job you can apply for, but a job you're asked to take on. At least in reputable journals, the members of the editorial board are largely scientists well known in their field. They have that role because the editor-in-chief trusts their opinions and perspectives on submitted papers, and also because they have the stature in the field to ...


41

Document everything. If you can't get a reply from the editors of the journal, write to the publisher. Or if it's the journal of a learned society, contact them. You probably can't act alone, but you may get more powerful allies (deeper pockets) on your side. There are others around you who have a vested interest in your work. In particular, the journal ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible