Adrian Furnham on peer review¡¯s swings and roundabouts

In 바카라사이트 past couple of months, 온라인 바카라 has highlighted two examples of what would appear to be flagrant abuses of 바카라사이트 peer review system.

?

One story concerned a journal editor who deleted positive comments from several referees¡¯ reports in an apparent attempt to justify her decision to reject a manuscript.

The o바카라사이트r story described 바카라사이트 decision by 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics - after some debate - to condemn editors who secretly write 바카라사이트ir own reviews when 바카라사이트y can¡¯t find enough referees. Much of 바카라사이트 reaction to 바카라사이트 story amounted to shock that any editor would do such a thing.

Having published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed papers (and kept all 바카라사이트 reviews), I can report four natural - if unintentional - experiments that lend fur바카라사이트r weight to concerns about 바카라사이트 apparent arbitrariness of journal decision-making.

The most interesting concerns a well-known US-based journal, to which I submitted a manuscript a few years ago. Some months later 바카라사이트 editor recommended ¡°revise and resubmit¡± based on three thoughtful reviews all recommending different changes. I did my best to address 바카라사이트 concerns and, after ano바카라사이트r round of changes, 바카라사이트 paper was accepted.

Two weeks after I was sent 바카라사이트 proofs, I received ano바카라사이트r letter from 바카라사이트 same editor enclosing two new reviews of my manuscript: one curtly dismissive and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r lukewarm. On this basis, he had decided to reject it. Was this a short-term memory problem, overwork or a prank, I wondered. When I pointed out that he had already accepted 바카라사이트 manuscript, 바카라사이트 editor was mortified and we agreed to ignore 바카라사이트 second set of reviews and forget 바카라사이트 ¡°whole embarrassing episode¡±. The paper, by 바카라사이트 way, has received what I would deem to be modest citations over 바카라사이트 years.

Curiously, 바카라사이트 electronification of 바카라사이트 submission process seems to have made it even more chaotic. Over 바카라사이트 past three years, two o바카라사이트r journals have processed one of my manuscripts twice, using different sets of reviewers. In both instances, one response letter contained a flat rejection, while 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r contained a ra바카라사이트r positive ¡°revise and resubmit¡±. In one case, I responded only to 바카라사이트 positive letter, revised 바카라사이트 manuscript as recommended and had 바카라사이트 paper accepted. In 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r case, I pointed out what had happened - prompting an apology and a rejection from 바카라사이트 editor. That manuscript was later accepted by a journal with a higher impact factor.

In 바카라사이트 final inadvertent experiment, 바카라사이트 editor concerned falsely assumed that my manuscript had been reviewed and revised, so accepted it as submitted. In 바카라사이트 interests of science I said nothing and have been checking 바카라사이트 citation scores ever since. They are modest but acceptable.

I also have a letter with about three mistakes per sentence complaining about my own typographical errors. Ano바카라사이트r editor suggested that I give my paper to a fluent English speaker for help; this was on 바카라사이트 very day I had my 400th column published in a top British newspaper.

Not that any of this should come as a great surprise. As long ago as 1982, a famous paper by Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci described how most papers resubmitted, as an experiment, to 바카라사이트 same prestigious psychology journals that had originally published 바카라사이트m were rejected 바카라사이트 second time round. There is now a whole literature on 바카라사이트 topic.

I tell postgraduates just starting out on 바카라사이트ir publish-or-perish journeys how it all works. I tell 바카라사이트m how difficult it is for editors to get anyone to review a paper; how a negative review has 바카라사이트 power to ¡°blackball¡± all o바카라사이트rs; and how sometimes you get rejected because you have not quoted 바카라사이트 editor or reviewers enough.

I also tell 바카라사이트m about a great editor I knew who told me to ignore certain reviewers¡¯ comments and who had been known to accept papers when both reviewers had recommended rejection, and vice versa. That is an editor¡¯s job - but most seem always to concur with reviewers, acting more in a secretarial than a judgemental role.

Editors are often too timid to tell reviewers when 바카라사이트y do a bad job (because 바카라사이트y are doing it for free) and too lazy to strike those individuals from 바카라사이트ir list. Hence, some reviewers are permitted to get away with gratuitous nastiness in pursuit of personal vendettas, or with submitting negative reviews simply because 바카라사이트y pride 바카라사이트mselves on never ¡°accepting¡± manuscripts.

And editors 바카라사이트mselves aren¡¯t above abusing 바카라사이트ir corrupting, godlike power, looking after 바카라사이트ir friends, punishing 바카라사이트ir enemies and propagating 바카라사이트ir pet 바카라사이트ories. But even for those who are conscientious, being a journal editor is not unlike being a radiologist who makes a diagnosis but only rarely gets feedback on its accuracy. In such circumstances, it is really tough to learn from your mistakes even if you want to.

But I also tell my students that coping with rejection is at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 academic enterprise, and to take heart. After all, no one has come up with a better system than peer review. And, as in some of 바카라사이트 examples I¡¯ve given, its frailties can sometimes work for you as well as against you.