This is very interesting!
I can see how this policy would be helpful to a new journal in providing quick background information for necessary editorial revisions or even ultimate rejection or acceptance. This could also be helpful to authors whose publications are not outstanding due to the quality of their research but rather due to space constraints or subject appropriateness. However, I wouldn't consider it acceptable as the sole decision-making criteria unless the rejecting publisher provided the reviews directly to the new journal in order to ensure a true blind peer review without author bias. I would hope that the editors of the International Journal of Medical Sciences conduct a second independent round of review. Regards, Charlotte Roh Scholarly Communications Resident Librarian W.E.B. Du Bois Library University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 Phone: (413)545-6872 Email: charlotte...@library.umass.edu From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Beall, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:25 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) (goal@eprints.org) Subject: [GOAL] Question about portability of peer review An open-access publisher has this policy <http://www.medsci.org/ms/author> regarding peer review portability: The Editors of the International Journal of Medical Sciences recognize that many manuscripts rejected by top-tier journals are still outstanding. Our journal is willing to review and re-evaluate manuscripts rejected from journals such as the Nature journals, Cell Press journals, NEJM, Lancet journals, Annals of Internal Medicine, and other high impact journals. We encourage authors to provide a copy of previous reviewer's and editor's comments. These reviews and rebuttals need to be dated and within 6 months of the last submission date. It is our belief that these prior reviews may assist us in expediting your manuscript for re-evaluation, thus facilitating more rapid publication; in some cases, the manuscript may be accepted immediately. Please include the prior reviews and your responses in the covering letter when making your submission. My question is this: Is peer-review portability considered acceptable when the author is the one that transfers the actual peer review data from the rejecting publisher to the new one (as described in the policy above)? Thank you, Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Initiatives Librarian Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver 1100 Lawrence St. Denver, Colo. 80204 USA (303) 534-8600 jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu Description: http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/departments/oiuc/brand/downloads/branddownload s/branddocuments/Logos-E-mail%20Signatures/emailSig_2campus.png
<<image001.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
