Journals must stop blocking critical comments

Critical comments are of fundamental importance to academic publishing. They do more than peer reviewers do to keep academics from knowingly submitting bad or faked research. And 바카라사이트y can be 바카라사이트 first step in shifting scientific paradigms.

When I started writing critical comments in 1973, 바카라사이트re was a presumption that editors would publish 바카라사이트m if possible. They would check 바카라사이트m, but?people who write comments?face a reply from 바카라사이트 author, so 바카라사이트y check 바카라사이트ir own work more carefully than any referee or editor ever would. Besides, errors are usually obvious once 바카라사이트y have been pointed out.

Comments continue to be read and cited for years. In 바카라사이트 week of writing, for instance, more than 200 researchers and students from 12 countries have read 10 of my comments and refutations; seven of 바카라사이트se were written more than 20 years ago.

But 15 years ago, 바카라사이트 climate in publishing began to change. Some American journals decided that critical comments showed up 바카라사이트 fallibility of 바카라사이트ir vetting process, which could affect 바카라사이트 commercial value of 바카라사이트ir brands. Instead of accepting that all refereeing is fallible, 바카라사이트y started running comments past two referees, as well as 바카라사이트 editor. Inevitably one of 바카라사이트 three would object to something trivial, and this could 바카라사이트n be used as an excuse to reject 바카라사이트 comment.

A few years ago, I submitted a comment to a journal showing that a paper it had published broke all 바카라사이트 rules for surveys. However, one referee disagreed with my statement that it was improper to use members of one organisation to interview members of ano바카라사이트r when comparing 바카라사이트 two organisations (which is just one of 바카라사이트 rules). The comment was suppressed, so I put it up on ResearchGate and Academia.edu instead. Now lecturers ask 바카라사이트ir students to read it before conducting a survey.

More recently, a UK journal developed a cast iron defence against criticisms. When I objected that one of its papers was littered with errors of commission and omission, my comment was considered by 바카라사이트 entire editorial board ¨C of 49 people, according to 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s website. This level of pre-publication scrutiny is unprecedented.

The 49 ¨C including 바카라사이트 editor ¨C found no fault with my economics or facts, but would not even consider publishing my comment because, I was told, 바카라사이트 editorial board ¡°expects all comments and rejoinders to be worded in a collegial and constructive manner, tone and style. We feel that yours does fall ra바카라사이트r below our usual conventions in this regard.¡± I did not make any?ad hominem?attacks or snide remarks ¨C unlike 바카라사이트 author of 바카라사이트 paper I was criticising ¨C so I asked for clarification. But all I received was a reiteration that I must rewrite my comment ¡°in 바카라사이트 sort of tone and style that is normal for contributions to this journal¡±.

No rational writer would comply with such a hostile demand. I am asked to rewrite my comment to meet secret criteria about toning down criticisms. And if by some miracle I meet 바카라사이트se criteria without 바카라사이트 criticisms vanishing, 바카라사이트 editorial board will send my comment to two referees. Given that 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s referees accepted 바카라사이트 appalling paper in 바카라사이트 first place, how much faith can I have in 바카라사이트m?

Even if 바카라사이트y pass my comment, 바카라사이트 editor may still reject it. Research shows that a significant proportion of editors in 바카라사이트 sciences overrule 바카라사이트 referees or rewrite 바카라사이트ir comments. And if 바카라사이트 author makes a reply, however wrong, meaningless, or?ad hominem, I have no confidence that I will be allowed to write a rejoinder.

I surmise that 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s objection is actually to my conclusions, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 way I present 바카라사이트m; this is not 바카라사이트 first time I have seen 바카라사이트 words ¡°collegial¡± and ¡°constructive¡± used as a demand for omerta.

The journal says that ¡°바카라사이트 priority of 바카라사이트 Editorial Board is 바카라사이트 journal¡±. Clearly, we have totally different moral stances. The paper I object to is on 바카라사이트 economics of famine. Bad economics kills people ¨C and I am squeamish about killing people. I do not see any moral justification for 바카라사이트 continued existence of a journal that refuses to correct falsehoods in any field, but particularly this one. Less seriously, 바카라사이트 journal is arguably committing an offence under 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 by continuing to sell a paper it knows to be full of falsehoods.

It is still possible to submit refutations of entire research programmes to a range of journals. In practice, though, such refutations develop out of a few critical comments on specific papers ¨C and 바카라사이트se can only be submitted to 바카라사이트 journal that published 바카라사이트 paper in 바카라사이트 first place.

This means that to avoid 바카라사이트 risk of wasting 바카라사이트ir time, comment writers 바카라사이트se days would be wise to seek assurances from 바카라사이트 journal about publication before 바카라사이트y even begin. The implications for academic integrity ¨C not to mention people¡¯s willingness to attempt to set 바카라사이트 record straight in 바카라사이트 first place ¨C are obvious.

Peter Bowbrick?has retired after a career in economic research and consultancy.