Read on Twitter
“On the transparency of the publishing process”: a thread based on a true story.
I want to share a recent experience that a friend had with the editorial handling of a manuscript in a major chemistry journal.
1/n
I want to share a recent experience that a friend had with the editorial handling of a manuscript in a major chemistry journal.
1/n
I won’t name names here, nor provide any detail about the scientific content of the work, which is not the point of this thread.
I will give an as objective as possible account of the facts and only at the end give my personal take on the whole story.
2/n
I will give an as objective as possible account of the facts and only at the end give my personal take on the whole story.
2/n
Episode 1 (the beginnings):
The authors submit the manuscript, which ends up being rejected. The editor’s decision is based on the reports of two reviewers: #1 praises the work and suggests minor revision, #2 raises some major points and suggests to submit elsewhere.
3/n
The authors submit the manuscript, which ends up being rejected. The editor’s decision is based on the reports of two reviewers: #1 praises the work and suggests minor revision, #2 raises some major points and suggests to submit elsewhere.
3/n
Fair enough, the authors were aiming high and the odds to be rejected are high at this level, it does not come as a surprise. However, they also find that some points raised by reviewer 2 are debatable and fundamentally flawed and decide to appeal the decision.
4/n
4/n
Episode 2 (the incident):
The appeal letter is sent to the editor and here is where the fun begins. The corresponding author receive, by accident, an email intended to be seen only by the editorial assistant and the handling editor, whose content is quite disconcerting.
5/n
The appeal letter is sent to the editor and here is where the fun begins. The corresponding author receive, by accident, an email intended to be seen only by the editorial assistant and the handling editor, whose content is quite disconcerting.
5/n
The editorial assistant is asking the editor how to proceed with the appeal and appends to the email the trail that led to the original rejection. Turns out that there is a 3rd reviewer report, with very positive comments, which the authors have not been made aware of.
6/n
6/n
When asked what to do with the manuscript, the editor instructs the assistant to reject based on reports by reviewers 1 and 2, ignoring the opinion of reviewer 3, and suggests a few lines to include in the email as their own overall judgement about the work.
7/n
7/n
Let me point out that the report of reviewer 3 is not a sort of cheerleading two liner saying “These folks are awesome, publish as is and give them a high five”. It is a professional and on point report that shows that the reviewer has read and understood the work.
8/n
8/n
The assistant quickly sends an email to say that the previous message wasn’t supposed to reach the corresponding author and it should be disregarded. After that, nothing happens for a few days.
9/n
9/n
Episode 3 (no regrets):
Finally, an email comes to inform the authors that they have read the reviewers’ reports in a selective manner, ignoring the most critical points, and that the best the editor can offer is to consider a resubmission within six months.
10/n
Finally, an email comes to inform the authors that they have read the reviewers’ reports in a selective manner, ignoring the most critical points, and that the best the editor can offer is to consider a resubmission within six months.
10/n
No reference to the incident is made. The best part is that, at the bottom of the email, there are now 3 reviewer reports appended, including the one that was previously “hidden”. Yet, the editor does not mention anything about the fact, as if this were completely normal.
11/n
11/n
Episode 4 (withdrawal):
The authors are baffled and decide to write a letter to communicate that they are withdrawing the manuscript from further consideration, given that there is no guarantee that it will be handled in a transparent way, based on the previous happenings.
12/n
The authors are baffled and decide to write a letter to communicate that they are withdrawing the manuscript from further consideration, given that there is no guarantee that it will be handled in a transparent way, based on the previous happenings.
12/n
The letter contains a recap of the facts that have led to the authors’ decision and is emailed to both the handling editor and the editor in chief.
13/n
13/n
Episode 5 (grand finale):
The editor in chief replies with a few lines saying that they acknowledge the withdrawal and that, should the authors decide to resubmit the manuscript for consideration to the same journal, it will be considered as a new submission.
End of facts.
14/n
The editor in chief replies with a few lines saying that they acknowledge the withdrawal and that, should the authors decide to resubmit the manuscript for consideration to the same journal, it will be considered as a new submission.
End of facts.
14/n
Now it is the time to move to opinions.
I believe that there are several points that deserve to be discussed here.
The associate editor and the editor in chief have both chosen to play it cool and just act as if everything is perfectly normal. But is it?
15/n
I believe that there are several points that deserve to be discussed here.
The associate editor and the editor in chief have both chosen to play it cool and just act as if everything is perfectly normal. But is it?
15/n
Is it just an unfortunate coincidence that the authors get a glimpse of the editorial process right when the editor chooses to neglect a legit reviewer report to support their decision to reject a manuscript? Or is this how manuscripts are usually handled at this journal?
16/n
16/n
For some reason, the editor was clearly biased towards not publishing the authors’ work in their prestigious journal and used the reviewers’ reports as cards to play their hand and just confirm their bias. Whatever the reason, this is playing dirty.
17/n
17/n
Why wasn’t the manuscript desk rejected in the first place? What is the point of requesting reports from experts, if these are then considered in a selective manner? Again, mind that the ignored report was on par with the other ones in terms of rigour and depth of analysis.
18/n
18/n
Is the editor a sort of demigod that can bend ethical principles to their pleasure? Would they have acted the same way if the authors were their comrades? This, in my opinion, is textbook gatekeeping.
19/n
19/n
How would reviewer 3 react, knowing that a report that they invested their time on, for free, was dismissed with no regard?
I would be outraged. If you invite me as an expert to review, you cannot simply ignore my opinion, it’s the very basis of the peer review system.
20/n
I would be outraged. If you invite me as an expert to review, you cannot simply ignore my opinion, it’s the very basis of the peer review system.
20/n
This would be easily avoided by emailing all the reviewers to inform them of the decision, appending all reports that support that decision. Some publishers do this: it ensures transparency, but it’s clear that the journal in this story does not see this as a priority.
21/n
21/n
Some journals publish the peer review history of a paper, but only if the paper is also published. If a paper gets rejected as the one in this story, there is no chance that the editor can be held accountable for their action, unless an email is sent to the wrong recipient.
22/n
22/n
Such a biased editorial process is well below the standard that one would expect from one of the most respected journals, both as an author and as a reviewer. This casts a long shadow on the editorial practices at this journal.
23/n
23/n
Personally, the trust I had in that journal has hit rock bottom and it will take time to rebuild it. There are many journals out there (even too many these days), I can happily live without publishing my science there.
End of thread.
End of thread.
