tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post1578679307605809479..comments2024-01-08T08:39:39.026-08:00Comments on The Open Source Paleontologist: Responding to Peer ReviewAndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-34115622910997827672009-01-08T01:46:00.000-08:002009-01-08T01:46:00.000-08:00Great post. WRT Mike's story, my experience as a j...Great post. WRT Mike's story, my experience as a journal editor would indicate that, yes, the mysterious third reviewer had abused his/her power as a member of the editorial team. It almost looks as if they muscled in after seeing Mike's ms in the system, somehow convincing the handling ed that their views were needed because it was 'their' subject. That's pretty deplorable.<BR/><BR/>As it happens, I do know of one other case of a rather similar - though even more serious - thing happening in the world of journal editing. In that case the relevant individual was (so I understand) removed from the editorial team as a result of their actions. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, palaeontology/palaeozoology is definitely not exceptional in this regard. Unfortunately, poor and/or absent ethics abound. Of course, this does NOT make it ok.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-53370086530368733932009-01-07T19:53:00.000-08:002009-01-07T19:53:00.000-08:00Yeah, that's totally not normal as compared to any...Yeah, that's totally not normal as compared to any review I've ever experienced. I've been involved in one or two cases where I was asked to be a third reviewer to help resolve "split" review decisions, but nothing where a completely random editor threw extra comments in. As for ethics. . .it does sound questionable. I seem to recall that all of the editors do have access to all manuscripts for a journal, so I guess it's not like he "stole" the MS. . .but, this might fall in the category of "barely ethical but really jerkish actions." So what Dave said, basically.<BR/><BR/>Glad the story has a happy ending, though! And I'm totally jealous of Dave getting a "ready for publication" review!Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-13174161818553524172009-01-07T18:00:00.000-08:002009-01-07T18:00:00.000-08:00Mike, that is *NOT* normal. The ethical-ness of it...Mike, that is *NOT* normal. The ethical-ness of it seems questionable. I guess the editor can show the MS to anyone he wants to (he'll often hav to show it oth other editors and it might go through several referees before it finds a home for real review), but once the decision is made I don't see how they can change it. I am not so surprised that another editor spotted it and asked to provide a review, but to do so after the others were doen, and to be submitted by the handling editor seems both strange, unnecessary and unpleaseant to the point of being unethical.<BR/><BR/>On a happier note, responding to Andy's main text (though related to Mike's tale) I did actually once get a pair of reviews that said "ready for publciation". As a result the editor then got two further reviews for the manuscript full of nonsense comments I then had to rebut. So having got a 'perfect' review I still had to rebut comments anyway. I should note that all 4 reviews arrived togehter, but the editor explicitly said in his covering letter than the first 2 were so good he asked for the other 2!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-80729268687132960092009-01-07T15:26:00.000-08:002009-01-07T15:26:00.000-08:00I had a strange experience in peer review, and I w...I had a strange experience in peer review, and I wondered if any of this blog's readers have seen the same thing. I sent a manuscript to a respected journal, and the handling editor sent it off to two reviewers. As it happens, both reviewers liked it a lot, and the handling editor sent the reviews back to me with a verdict of "accept with minor revision". So far, so good.<BR/><BR/>Then, six days later, as I was making the reviewers' recommended revisions, I got a THIRD review out of the blue, not submitted via the journal's usual automated system but forwarded by hand by the editor. That third review had not been solicited by the editor, and was dated five days AFTER the editorial decision had been made. Coincidentally, or not, that review was from someone who is on the editorial board of the journal in question, though not involved in the handling of my manuscript; also perhaps coincidentally, the additional review was very, very negative -- almost comically so in light of the two very positive reviews from that actual reviewers.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to say too much about this for fear of accidentally divulging details (though I will say we have a happy ending, as the paper is now in press), but I did want to ask: is this normal? Is it even ethical? Has it happened to anyone else?Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-66717347390559679372009-01-07T14:20:00.000-08:002009-01-07T14:20:00.000-08:00Wow. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I'm ai...Wow. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I'm aiming to be a Vertebrate Paelontologist myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com