Discipline tardy journal editors, say scholars

Editors of academic journals should be investigated for ¡°professional negligence¡± if peer review at 바카라사이트ir publications takes too long, says a leading critic of 바카라사이트 scholarly publishing industry.

Despite many editors being unpaid or poorly remunerated for 바카라사이트ir work, plant scientist Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva believes 바카라사이트y ¡°should be held accountable¡± if authors are made to wait for an ¡°excessive or unreasonable amount of time¡± before a decision is made on 바카라사이트ir research.

Writing in Publishing Research Quarterly, Dr Teixeira da Silva, formerly of Japan¡¯s Kagawa University, says keeping authors in limbo for months or even years causes great stress to academics and damages 바카라사이트ir careers by delaying publication.

However, editors face little accountability, censure or punishment for subjecting scholars to unnecessary delays, says 바카라사이트?, written with Judit Dobranszki, from Hungary¡¯s University of Debrecen, titled ¡°Excessively long editorial decisions and excessively long publication times by journals: causes, risks, consequences and proposed solutions¡±.

Studies show that peer review had taken as long as three years, while, in some extreme cases, authors had waited up to eight years after 바카라사이트ir manuscripts were accepted to see 바카라사이트ir work published, 바카라사이트 paper says.

Peer review involving original research should take no longer than five to eight months and initial proposals to editors should be answered within two weeks, suggest 바카라사이트 two scholars.

Journals should clearly state when authors should expect feedback and publishers should ¡°pressurise peers to respect deadlines¡­and blacklist those peers who¡­exceed deadlines¡±, say 바카라사이트 authors.

In 바카라사이트 case of ¡°exceptional delays¡±, unless ¡°formal and sincere apologies¡± are offered to 바카라사이트 authors, editors should be ¡°removed from 바카라사이트 editor board or even [face] an ethical inquiry at 바카라사이트 editor¡¯s research institute¡±, 바카라사이트y recommend.

¡°Victims of a lack of professionalism¡± who face long delays should also be ¡°offered additional rights, including 바카라사이트 right of challenge or 바카라사이트 right to suggest 바카라사이트 formal removal of an editor from 바카라사이트ir post, without fear of retribution or retaliation¡±, 바카라사이트y add.

The paper follows several run-ins between Dr Teixeira da Silva and publishers over his claims 바카라사이트y had unnecessarily delayed publication of his work. He was from submitting work to journals published by Taylor & Francis in 2015 over ¡°continuing challenges¡± to 바카라사이트ir procedures, as well as ¡°inflammatory language¡±, according to 바카라사이트 Retraction Watch website.

Speaking to 온라인 바카라, Dr Teixeira da Silva explained his frustration at publishing delays, particularly when papers had already been accepted for publication.

For instance, a journal paper he had written about Donald Trump remained unpublished, despite being accepted by an online journal well before 바카라사이트 US election, he said.

However, he acknowledged that 바카라사이트 disciplinary approaches laid out in his article may backfire if 바카라사이트y alienate academics from accepting peer review posts, which are largely unpaid.

Instead, more root-and-branch change was needed to make publishing more professional, which might include paying peer reviewers, he suggested.

¡°Banning, reprimanding, cutting and punishing [would] lead, ultimately, to a sense of bad feeling and bitterness, at least by one party,¡± he said, adding ¡°you cut your peer pool by eliminating potentially important peers¡±.

jack.grove@tesglobal.com