tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post5106057846864603006..comments2024-03-29T08:40:11.883+00:00Comments on BishopBlog: Journals without editors: What is going on?deevybeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-23091263815972046442015-02-26T01:37:36.302+00:002015-02-26T01:37:36.302+00:00I had a similar inexplicable rejection experience ...I had a similar inexplicable rejection experience with Johnny Matson within 4 minutes of submitting when I had checked and the paper did indeed fit the scope of the journal. One of his comments was about the quality of the design being poor. I resubmitted the manuscript to unchanged to another journal of repute in the field had a review which accepted following revisions interestingly the subsequent review made specific comments on how well the study had been designed. This reduced my faith in the journal and in his judgement. In my experience it has been known and surreptitiously discussed for many years in the field at conferences and meetings and many have simply avoided that journal as a result. I'm very glad to see he's no longer on the editorial board of the journal and may consider submitting future work there now. I dislike the existence of such people in the academic world as I think they undermine our credibility and it's difficult enough to get our work out there and into the public domain as it is. I think it's shameful and exploitative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-46172121504204344502015-02-24T16:13:42.876+00:002015-02-24T16:13:42.876+00:00In response to the appeal for authors to confess t...In response to the appeal for authors to confess to having papers accepted without review... <br /><br />I submitted a single authored review article to the Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, where Dr Matson is Editor-in-Chief, on 14th June 2013. The paper was assigned to "the Editor(s)' the next day. <br /><br />On 7th August I received the following message: <br />"We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, "A Targeted Review of Computer-Assisted Learning for People with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Towards a Consistent Methodology", has been accepted for publication..."<br /><br />I didn't receive any reviewer comments or further information. I've just checked my online author account and can find no record of reviews or reviewers there either. <br /><br />I was disconcerted of course but thought that maybe there had been reviews, but the comments were minor, and the editors were happy to accept the original. RJADD is a new journal and was published for the first time in January 2014 I think, so I also thought maybe they were under some pressure to secure content and needed to be quick / not very picky. I'm relatively early in my career and, while I review papers of course, I'm not on any editorial boards. <br /><br />I pushed it out of my mind - we all know how hard it is to get work published and this was my first single author paper so I had no-one to consult. Plus because it is a literature review I was a bit less worried than if I had been presenting original data. Even so, I have re-read that paper about 4 times since it was published, looking for faults and wondering if it is really any good. The experience was extremely unsettling. Sue Fletcher-Watsonhttp://www.dart.ed.ac.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-59166485254365346182015-02-23T20:41:29.982+00:002015-02-23T20:41:29.982+00:00Michael, these are steps in the right direction.
Michael, these are steps in the right direction.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-66659519955028168572015-02-23T20:08:35.540+00:002015-02-23T20:08:35.540+00:00This is appalling. I really hope his institution a...This is appalling. I really hope his institution are looking into his abuse of power.<br /><br />I'm glad your paper ended up somewhere more deserving :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-31881453118448421712015-02-23T17:40:16.987+00:002015-02-23T17:40:16.987+00:00Elsevier is pleased to announce the Editor-in-Chie...Elsevier is pleased to announce the Editor-in-Chief appointment for Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, with effect from 1st March 2015. <br /> <br />Dr Sebastian Gaigg, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at City University London, UK, has accepted the position of Editor-in-Chief on Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Dr Gaigg began his academic career as a research assistant to Professor Bowler in the Autism Research Group at City University London, investigating learning and memory processes in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) on successive grants funded by the Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council. In parallel he completed his PhD on the role of emotion related processes in ASD and subsequently took up a permanent faculty position in the Psychology Department in 2009.<br /><br />Further announcements will be made shortly regarding the appointment of an editorial team to support Dr Gaigg.Michael Osuchhttp://www.elsevier.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-64035143372042926562015-02-23T16:52:57.420+00:002015-02-23T16:52:57.420+00:00I’d like to add my perspective based on my attempt...I’d like to add my perspective based on my attempt to publish in RIDD. It may be the case the favored colleagues were published without review or expedited review, but I’m concerned that work from junior faculty in areas other than autism were not given a fair chance or a true peer-review process. Last year I submitted a manuscript that was appropriate to RIDD’s stated Aims and Scope. It also was data-based, innovative, and clinically important. When I received the initial review of the manuscript I was very surprised. There was a definite mismatch between the two reviewers’ comments and the editor’s decision. The editor did not provide any feedback or summary with his decision. I discussed this mismatch with several of my senior colleagues, and I was uniformly advised to contact the editor about my concern. Below you can see the correspondence.<br /><br />Dear Dr. Matson:<br />Thank you for the update on my manuscript “RIDDXXXX Title.” The reviewers had some very good suggestions for a revision, and the tone of the review is encouraging and provides direction for revision. Given this positive tone, I was surprised by the “reject” decision, because the reviewer comments felt more consistent with a “revise and resubmit” or “major revision” decision. It feels like there is mismatch between the reviewer comments and the final decision. Can you reconsider or explain this to me a bit? <br /><br />I look forward to hearing from you.<br /><br /><br />Response from Jonny Matson:<br /><br />Well,<br /> The decision by the reviewers and more importantly me as action editor was reject. I suggest you take the points that make sense ,revise and resumbit elsewehere.<br /><br />Dr. Matson<br /><br /><br />Upon receiving this curt response from Johnny Matson (his typos are left unchanged), I realized that my work did not have a chance in “his” publication and that he made the final decision but was not willing to discuss, explain, or expand upon the decision. My manuscript was not given full consideration, likely because the topic did not interest Johnny or because I was not one of his known colleagues. Johnny Matson abused his role as editor in that he used the journal as a venue to publish his own work and that of his colleagues, while he denied access and a peer review process to those who attempted to publish quality work. The manuscript I originally submitted to RIDD has since been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal. What was lost? My time and momentum in advancing my line of research was definitely compromised. For junior faculty it is deflating to realize that senior researchers will abuse their status and that peer-reviewed journals like RIDD and RASD can be hijacked by egomaniacs. It seems that Elsevier and other publishers need to establish and improve upon the procedures that editors implement for the peer review process. I applaud Elsevier for ousting king Johnny, and I hope that they will improve upon their process and make sure there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the peer review process actually occurs.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-31296689990766950272015-02-22T21:22:09.956+00:002015-02-22T21:22:09.956+00:00This is so weird. This is so weird. Lily Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696436031777040832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-11668572854008265762015-02-21T15:14:58.288+00:002015-02-21T15:14:58.288+00:00Can they just make a rule of if you are an editor ...Can they just make a rule of if you are an editor of one journal, then you cannot be an editor of another journal because it may be more likely to lead to higher self-citations and higher h-index, which they don't deserve? In other words, it focuses on our reputation rather than scientific rigour, thus not helping in science in the long run. We know he is human and not some other creature, but I think we need to be quite rigorous about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-49798114247256239522015-02-19T17:53:13.371+00:002015-02-19T17:53:13.371+00:00Of course, there are very good reasons for anonymi...Of course, there are very good reasons for anonymity for authors AND reviewers. We all keep score = tit for tat. But it would be informative to know the reviewers' recommendations. I recently reviewed a manuscript that was rejected by 2 of the 3 reviewers (after major revisions) but published regardless. The one reviewer who recommended acceptance had nothing concrete to say about the paper (and not much at all, actually) while the other two catalogued the many problems at length. So, rather than names, something like: Reviewer 1 - Reject, Reviewer 2 - Reject, Reviewer 3 - Accept without revisions. This should be done for initial submissions and each revision. I see problems with this too but it's certainly better than using names. It's really not a good idea (particularly for younger scholars) to make enemies in the field. Richard Griffinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-82732166667032814922015-02-17T19:26:27.254+00:002015-02-17T19:26:27.254+00:00He is also editor of the newly established Springe...He is also editor of the newly established Springer "Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders"<br /><br />I wonder what Springer have to say....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-31557702419360730602015-02-17T08:52:21.983+00:002015-02-17T08:52:21.983+00:00I am sorry. I meant to say I agree with you.
aft...I am sorry. I meant to say I agree with you. <br /><br />after know, it is as to whether it works?<br /><br />Is there a edit button anywhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-38838850900204760582015-02-17T08:50:44.502+00:002015-02-17T08:50:44.502+00:00I agree with it. Also, we don't whether it wor...I agree with it. Also, we don't whether it works or not, yet it can allow us to evaluate data more clearly. However, Frans de Waal was not only the reviewer of a paper by his PhD student, but also the author. It was stated in the paper, leading us to know does it work? <br /><br />Do we need a study to see its effect?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-84205152790675057252015-02-16T18:57:37.818+00:002015-02-16T18:57:37.818+00:00Thanks for the clarification, Neuroskeptic. I had ...Thanks for the clarification, Neuroskeptic. I had guessed that the editor was allowed to do this, or the publishing director probably wouldn't have mentioned it so publicly!! But it still doesn't feel right - to me, anyway! <br /><br />But what about my suggestion that all published articles should include the names of people who reviewed it? I think it would make things more transparent and perhaps encourage more rigorous reviews. It's just a suggestion, though.Dean D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17074749060825213986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-67870259198754603562015-02-16T12:15:47.109+00:002015-02-16T12:15:47.109+00:00It is unusual. But the Author Guidelines of both R...It is unusual. But the Author Guidelines of both RIDD and RASD contain <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/journals/research-in-autism-spectrum-disorders/1750-9467/guide-for-authors" rel="nofollow">the following text</a>:<br /><br /><i>"In order to maintain a rapid rate of review all submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the Editor in Chief for completeness and appropriateness to the journal's stated Aims and Scope. Manuscripts that pass the initial review will be handled by the Editor, sent out to reviewers in the field, sent to an associate editor for handling, or some combination thereof, solely at the discretion of the Editor."</i><br /><br />This unusual clause (it appears nowhere else, only in the RIDD and RASD guidelines) seems to allow the Editor to not just reject, but also accept, papers, all on his own.Neuroskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06647064768789308157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-70573820285602473302015-02-15T20:44:12.724+00:002015-02-15T20:44:12.724+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00932591782947710840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-39000540576507396262015-02-15T18:09:40.817+00:002015-02-15T18:09:40.817+00:00"Dr Matson acted as sole referee"
It d..."Dr Matson acted as sole referee" <br /><br />It doesn't feel right for an editor to act as sole referee. I wonder whether all published articles should include details of the number and names of the referees. (I think I've seen this somewhere - in Frontiers.)Dean D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17074749060825213986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-51807406334708527142015-02-14T10:12:22.231+00:002015-02-14T10:12:22.231+00:00Thank you for the clarification. For further comme...Thank you for the clarification. For further comment on the issue of Associate Editors, please see the update dated 14th Feb at the end of this blogpost.deevybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-66506301025861566262015-02-13T12:18:54.810+00:002015-02-13T12:18:54.810+00:00Yes, we have looked at the files. In a minority of...Yes, we have looked at the files. In a minority of cases, Dr Matson acted as sole referee. Our focus is now on the future by bring on board new editorial teams whose priority will be to ensure that all accepted articles have a minimum of two referee reports. Michael Osuchhttp://www.elsevier.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-85751781013198516522015-02-13T10:56:35.888+00:002015-02-13T10:56:35.888+00:00Sorry, Dr Osuch, but your statement 'Under Dr ...Sorry, Dr Osuch, but your statement 'Under Dr Matson’s editorship of both RIDD and RASD all accepted papers were reviewed' is simply untrue. I have been contacted by authors who were happily surprised to find their papers accepted without review. People don't like to admit to it (as it devalues their paper) but it happened, and the short gaps between receipt and acceptance of papers would be impossible in some cases unless there were no review. Has Elsevier checked the files and seen the referee reports?deevybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-9693919680833216302015-02-13T10:05:43.625+00:002015-02-13T10:05:43.625+00:00As the Publishing Director for Neuroscience & ...As the Publishing Director for Neuroscience & Psychology journals at Elsevier, I would like to clarify some issues addressed in your blog. <br /> <br />Under Dr Matson’s editorship of both RIDD and RASD all accepted papers were reviewed, and papers on which Dr Matson was an author were handled by one of the former Associate Editors. Dr Matson and his team of Associate Editors stepped down at the end of 2014, and he retains a honorary position of ‘Founding Editor’, which does not include handling manuscripts. <br /> <br />Since last November we have been engaging with members of the community to identify potential replacements for both titles. We welcome further engagement with the community to build the appropriate editorial teams, and would welcome expressions of interest from suitably qualified scholars. <br /> <br />In the meantime, our publishing staff have been working, alongside a freelance editor, at securing at least two suitable expert referees for papers submitted. We are working to avoid a backlog and limit any potential delays for authors of those papers. Editorial decisions themselves will be made by the new editorial team when appointed shortly. As we move towards making those appointments, we will ensure that quality peer review remains our priority.<br />Michael Osuchhttp://www.elsevier.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-36865007240785379422015-02-03T17:29:16.088+00:002015-02-03T17:29:16.088+00:00well, if you're going to publish 50+ papers a ...well, if you're going to publish 50+ papers a year, you have to get 'em in and get 'em out on a weekly basis.JPMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916678891199088625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-56637750661896637342015-02-03T16:56:33.387+00:002015-02-03T16:56:33.387+00:00Wow! I had a look at a few and the turnaround is c...Wow! I had a look at a few and the turnaround is certainly brisk - though this seems to apply to all papers, and not just those authored by Matson. Just saw one with other authors that had:<br />Received 21 June 2011<br />Received in revised form 26 June 2011<br />Accepted 27 June 2011<br />Available online 4 August 2011deevybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-88554353832626032672015-02-03T16:37:22.174+00:002015-02-03T16:37:22.174+00:00Fascinating...out of curiosity, I looked at a rece...Fascinating...out of curiosity, I looked at a recent paper in one of these journals, and the editorial information is as follows "Received 23 October 2013, Accepted 29 October 2013, Available online 21 December 2013"...yep, a six day turn around between initial submission and official acceptance.JPMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916678891199088625noreply@blogger.com