Re: [ECOLOG-L] guidance on editor conduct

[Bob O'Hara]

On 02/05/15 19:07, Robert Stevenson wrote:

Dear All

Occasionally editors do a poor job of managing the review process for a paper 
submitted to a scientific journal - the number of reviews is inadequate, the 
reviews themselves seem to be based on biased opinion rather than objective 
criticism, etc.

This can make it difficult for the paper to get a fair evaluation and/or it can 
be a misunderstanding by the author of the explicit or cultural scope of the 
journal

A quick google search did not turn up any general guide lines or code of 
conduct for editors.  Can anyone point me to documents that describes the 
implicit trust, roles and responsibilities in the author-editor-reviewer 
exchanges.
You've already been pointed to COPE, which is an excellent resource (and 
a great tie suck if you get caught in the case studies).


Irene Hames' book "Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific 
Journals" is good if you want more detail:


Appendix I is a checklist of what to do (and not do!), and is free 
online, from the link.


Bob

--

Bob O'Hara

Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre
Senckenberganlage 25
D-60325 Frankfurt am Main,
Germany

Tel: +49 69 7542 1863
Mobile: +49 1515 888 5440
WWW:   http://www.bik-f.de/root/index.php?page_id=219
Blog: http://blogs.nature.com/boboh
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org

Re: [ECOLOG-L] guidance on editor conduct

[Melissa Scherr]

There's been interesting things in the news lately regarding journal
reviewers and accountability from editors. For example...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/04/sexist-peer-review-elicits-furious-twitter-response

Additional food for thought.

Cheers,
Melissa

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Don McKenzie  wrote:

> Some good thoughts by Malcolm.  Just one thing I’d like to add.
>
> More and more recently I have seen editors abdicate their responsibility
> to evaluate not just the manuscript, but the reviewers’ opinions.
> Sending a revision back to the same reviewers for “re-review” can be
> useful in some cases, but it is way overused IMO.  The reviewers are not
> necessarily right, and it is the editor’s job to evaluate both sides after
> seeing a revision and the authors’ rebuttal. If the editor has been selected
> wisely by the assigning editor (doesn’t always happen either), he/she
> should be competent to do this.
>
> Example: I recently had an editor say (paraphrase) “The reviewers don’t
> like your revision, so I have no choice but to reject.”   Gong…
>
> Don McKenzie
> Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Lab
> US Forest Service
> d...@uw.edu 
>
> >
> >
> >> On May 2, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Malcolm McCallum <
> malcolm.mccallum.ta...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> A SHORT GUIDE TO ETHICAL EDITING FOR NEW EDITORS
> >>
> http://publicationethics.org/files/short%20guide%20to%20ethical%20editing%20for%20new%20editors.pdf
> <
> http://publicationethics.org/files/short%20guide%20to%20ethical%20editing%20for%20new%20editors.pdf
> >
> >>
> >> COPE Guidelines
> >> http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
> >>
> >> In regard to editor responsibilities, when I handle a paper, I feel it
> is
> >> my responsibility to screen out comments that are inappropriate, or
> ignore
> >> clearly biased reviews.  Further, as an editor, the peer reviews are
> >> recommendations and the journal need not be bound to the comments the
> >> reviewers provided. Truthfully, after handling peer review for hundreds
> of
> >> papers, most peer reviews seem to be pretty professional undertakings.
> >> However, I have seen my fair share of comments that were clearly
> personal
> >> biases based not on the substance of the article.  As the editor, if
> they
> >> were trite comments, I frankly deleted them.  Insults and incendiary
> >> comments have no place in a peer review.  IF the reviewer was clearly
> >> biased, I tossed the review and got a new one.  THere have been a
> handful
> >> of papers (and I am talking maybe 5-6 in my 10 years of editing in which
> >> 2-3 reviewers all agreed on something that was just plain wrong.  I
> >> attribute this to random chance.  In each of these cases, the author was
> >> instructed to confront the comment and defend in their article their
> >> approach in light of the comment, which was frankly VERY EASY to do.  I
> >> have also noticed that often, reviewers will make statements like, "how
> is
> >> this possible?" or "this makes no sense" where a second person will
> find it
> >> very difficult to infer what the problem is.  In such cases, the comment
> >> could be directed at writing (cumbersome prose that is difficult to
> >> interpret) or criticism of the underlying deductions or theories.  In
> most
> >> cases, however, the response by the author really needed to involve
> >> clarification of what they mean.  There is a very delicate balance
> between
> >> conciseness and lack of details.  As an editor, I feel it is important
> to
> >> clarify for the author/s how the journal would like the author/s to
> handle
> >> the peer review comments.  I recall one (shall remain nameless) friend
> of
> >> mine who once advised me that the editor needs to use common sense with
> >> reviews.  This individual told me of a paper that was submitted to  >> name top tier journal> and when the reviews came back, the editor
> handed my
> >> friend the reviews and told him basically, "Reviewer #2 can be largely
> >> ignored, but I'm giving you the review because you might want to
> confront
> >> some of the comments in the manuscrpt."  I would have simply deleted the
> >> garbage and sumarized the review based on what was needed.  It is
> equally
> >> important to make sure the author sees the compliments too.  It is good
> for
> >> a reviewer to approach articles with a list of what is good about it,
> what
> >> is bad about it, and what is borderline.  The same thing with editors.
> >>
> >> Before I was an editor, I used to think that editors should follow the
> >> recommendations of the reviewers 100% of the time.  My views changed
> after
> >> doing it.  The comments from reviewers can be quite amazing.  The
> editors
> >> control what is published, not the peer reviewers.  WHy?  Because it is
> >> his-her reptuation on the line if a paper gets published that was just
> >> plain bad.  An editor should be choosing peer revi

Re: [ECOLOG-L] guidance on editor conduct

[Don McKenzie]

Some good thoughts by Malcolm.  Just one thing I’d like to add.

More and more recently I have seen editors abdicate their responsibility to 
evaluate not just the manuscript, but the reviewers’ opinions.
Sending a revision back to the same reviewers for “re-review” can be useful in 
some cases, but it is way overused IMO.  The reviewers are not
necessarily right, and it is the editor’s job to evaluate both sides after 
seeing a revision and the authors’ rebuttal. If the editor has been selected 
wisely by the assigning editor (doesn’t always happen either), he/she should be 
competent to do this.

Example: I recently had an editor say (paraphrase) “The reviewers don’t like 
your revision, so I have no choice but to reject.”   Gong…

Don McKenzie
Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Lab
US Forest Service
d...@uw.edu 

> 
> 
>> On May 2, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Malcolm McCallum 
>> mailto:malcolm.mccallum.ta...@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> A SHORT GUIDE TO ETHICAL EDITING FOR NEW EDITORS
>> http://publicationethics.org/files/short%20guide%20to%20ethical%20editing%20for%20new%20editors.pdf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> COPE Guidelines
>> http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
>> 
>> In regard to editor responsibilities, when I handle a paper, I feel it is
>> my responsibility to screen out comments that are inappropriate, or ignore
>> clearly biased reviews.  Further, as an editor, the peer reviews are
>> recommendations and the journal need not be bound to the comments the
>> reviewers provided. Truthfully, after handling peer review for hundreds of
>> papers, most peer reviews seem to be pretty professional undertakings.
>> However, I have seen my fair share of comments that were clearly personal
>> biases based not on the substance of the article.  As the editor, if they
>> were trite comments, I frankly deleted them.  Insults and incendiary
>> comments have no place in a peer review.  IF the reviewer was clearly
>> biased, I tossed the review and got a new one.  THere have been a handful
>> of papers (and I am talking maybe 5-6 in my 10 years of editing in which
>> 2-3 reviewers all agreed on something that was just plain wrong.  I
>> attribute this to random chance.  In each of these cases, the author was
>> instructed to confront the comment and defend in their article their
>> approach in light of the comment, which was frankly VERY EASY to do.  I
>> have also noticed that often, reviewers will make statements like, "how is
>> this possible?" or "this makes no sense" where a second person will find it
>> very difficult to infer what the problem is.  In such cases, the comment
>> could be directed at writing (cumbersome prose that is difficult to
>> interpret) or criticism of the underlying deductions or theories.  In most
>> cases, however, the response by the author really needed to involve
>> clarification of what they mean.  There is a very delicate balance between
>> conciseness and lack of details.  As an editor, I feel it is important to
>> clarify for the author/s how the journal would like the author/s to handle
>> the peer review comments.  I recall one (shall remain nameless) friend of
>> mine who once advised me that the editor needs to use common sense with
>> reviews.  This individual told me of a paper that was submitted to > name top tier journal> and when the reviews came back, the editor handed my
>> friend the reviews and told him basically, "Reviewer #2 can be largely
>> ignored, but I'm giving you the review because you might want to confront
>> some of the comments in the manuscrpt."  I would have simply deleted the
>> garbage and sumarized the review based on what was needed.  It is equally
>> important to make sure the author sees the compliments too.  It is good for
>> a reviewer to approach articles with a list of what is good about it, what
>> is bad about it, and what is borderline.  The same thing with editors.
>> 
>> Before I was an editor, I used to think that editors should follow the
>> recommendations of the reviewers 100% of the time.  My views changed after
>> doing it.  The comments from reviewers can be quite amazing.  The editors
>> control what is published, not the peer reviewers.  WHy?  Because it is
>> his-her reptuation on the line if a paper gets published that was just
>> plain bad.  An editor should be choosing peer reviewers for a reason.  For
>> example, if I recieve a paper on spatial modeling of cricket frog
>> pathologies in the United States (a completely made up example), I want to
>> know if the spatial modeling and pathologies have been approached
>> properly.  Having done my doctoral work on cricket frogs, and published a
>> lot of papers on them, so it might not be necessary to use a cricket frog
>> biologist.  I would snag a GIS scientist and an amphibian pathologist to
>> review it, and if necessary a cricket frog bioologist as the third

Re: [ECOLOG-L] guidance on editor conduct

[Malcolm McCallum]

A SHORT GUIDE TO ETHICAL EDITING FOR NEW EDITORS
http://publicationethics.org/files/short%20guide%20to%20ethical%20editing%20for%20new%20editors.pdf

COPE Guidelines
http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

In regard to editor responsibilities, when I handle a paper, I feel it is
my responsibility to screen out comments that are inappropriate, or ignore
clearly biased reviews.  Further, as an editor, the peer reviews are
recommendations and the journal need not be bound to the comments the
reviewers provided. Truthfully, after handling peer review for hundreds of
papers, most peer reviews seem to be pretty professional undertakings.
However, I have seen my fair share of comments that were clearly personal
biases based not on the substance of the article.  As the editor, if they
were trite comments, I frankly deleted them.  Insults and incendiary
comments have no place in a peer review.  IF the reviewer was clearly
biased, I tossed the review and got a new one.  THere have been a handful
of papers (and I am talking maybe 5-6 in my 10 years of editing in which
2-3 reviewers all agreed on something that was just plain wrong.  I
attribute this to random chance.  In each of these cases, the author was
instructed to confront the comment and defend in their article their
approach in light of the comment, which was frankly VERY EASY to do.  I
have also noticed that often, reviewers will make statements like, "how is
this possible?" or "this makes no sense" where a second person will find it
very difficult to infer what the problem is.  In such cases, the comment
could be directed at writing (cumbersome prose that is difficult to
interpret) or criticism of the underlying deductions or theories.  In most
cases, however, the response by the author really needed to involve
clarification of what they mean.  There is a very delicate balance between
conciseness and lack of details.  As an editor, I feel it is important to
clarify for the author/s how the journal would like the author/s to handle
the peer review comments.  I recall one (shall remain nameless) friend of
mine who once advised me that the editor needs to use common sense with
reviews.  This individual told me of a paper that was submitted to  and when the reviews came back, the editor handed my
friend the reviews and told him basically, "Reviewer #2 can be largely
ignored, but I'm giving you the review because you might want to confront
some of the comments in the manuscrpt."  I would have simply deleted the
garbage and sumarized the review based on what was needed.  It is equally
important to make sure the author sees the compliments too.  It is good for
a reviewer to approach articles with a list of what is good about it, what
is bad about it, and what is borderline.  The same thing with editors.

Before I was an editor, I used to think that editors should follow the
recommendations of the reviewers 100% of the time.  My views changed after
doing it.  The comments from reviewers can be quite amazing.  The editors
control what is published, not the peer reviewers.  WHy?  Because it is
his-her reptuation on the line if a paper gets published that was just
plain bad.  An editor should be choosing peer reviewers for a reason.  For
example, if I recieve a paper on spatial modeling of cricket frog
pathologies in the United States (a completely made up example), I want to
know if the spatial modeling and pathologies have been approached
properly.  Having done my doctoral work on cricket frogs, and published a
lot of papers on them, so it might not be necessary to use a cricket frog
biologist.  I would snag a GIS scientist and an amphibian pathologist to
review it, and if necessary a cricket frog bioologist as the third
reviewer.  Such an approach really reduces the probability of biases and
conflicts within a small field/group.  GIS and pathology are pretty big
areas, whereas, there are not really that large of a group of cricket frog
experts on the planet! :)

The number of reviews can be inadequate simply because obtaining reviewers
can be so difficult.  Some editors might feel your manuscript would not
benefit from a review by someone who simply has no background in anyway
related to the paper.  Others will.  Imagine a scenario (actually happened
in a generalized impact rating > 4 journal!) where you submit a paper on
developing microsatellites to Journal X, the editor sends it to two random
reviewers the reviews who perform legit well-thought-out reviews but one's
career pre-dates the use of microsattelites, and the other is a physicist.
  One good review is worth a hundred reviews-for-the-sake-of-reviews.  With
a lot of people refusing to review paper, it can sometimes be a task just
to get one solid reviewer.  Remember, reviewers are more a kind of SOP for
QA/QC than they are police.  They don't really guard much, but they do
reduce the chances of a mess up in the process.



On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Robert Stevenson 
wrote:

> Dear All
>

[ECOLOG-L] guidance on editor conduct

[Robert Stevenson]

Dear All

Occasionally editors do a poor job of managing the review process for a paper 
submitted to a scientific journal - the number of reviews is inadequate, the 
reviews themselves seem to be based on biased opinion rather than objective 
criticism, etc.

This can make it difficult for the paper to get a fair evaluation and/or it can 
be a misunderstanding by the author of the explicit or cultural scope of the 
journal

A quick google search did not turn up any general guide lines or code of 
conduct for editors.  Can anyone point me to documents that describes the 
implicit trust, roles and responsibilities in the author-editor-reviewer 
exchanges.

Thanks?


Rob Stevenson

UMass Boston