Dear all,
I think it is useful to clarify the perceived problem. It appears to be
a resentment of 'Type 2 error' in scientific publication: rejecting a
manuscript when it in fact 'deserves' to be published. Setting aside
tha fact that someone, somewhere, will ultimately have to make this
judgement (and judgement is at the heart of science), allow me to quote
from our recent paper on predatory journals where I wrote about this
very topic:
''...The miracle of the scientific enterprise is that it has advanced
so well with nothing more than the ‘gentlemans agreement,’ which
morally binds authors, editors, and reviewers to producing
good quality, honest work.
The foundation of the review process is to reduce ‘Type 1’
error — accepting a manuscript that is fatally flawed. ‘Type 2’
error — rejecting a good manuscript — is considered potentially less
harmful to science. Although we may quibble about this last point,
we must recognize that the only way to ensure that no good
manuscript is rejected, is to accept all submissions, and this would
be fatal to science! Just as in statistics, it is impossible to reduce
the probability of Type 1 errors without increasing the probability of
Type 2 errors, so a rigorous approach to Type 1 publishing errors
will invariably produce more Type 2 errors, but this is by far the
lesser of the two evils.
Although there have been cases of malfeasance, and most
scientists have experienced what they consider to be unfair quality
assessments, it is truly a testament to the power of good will, and the
scientific ideal of striving for truth that until recently, science has
not been so hindered by corruption that it has been threatened with
extinction. The progressive decline in the number of ‘gentlemen,’
however, together with the intrusion of considerable numbers of the
exact opposite in the scientific publication sphere, have combined to
now threaten the very existence of science. Predatory open access
(OA) journals, which by their very nature have no regard for Type 2
errors, have thrown the prevention of Type 1 errors to the winds,
and we believe that science, the cornerstone of modern human
civilization, now faces an existential threat.''
Beninger et al Journal of Shellfish Research 35: 1–5, 2016
The existential threat is NOT a real or perceived increase in Type 2
errors, but rather the economically-expedient (read: avaricious)
adoption of the idea that all manuscripts DESERVE to be published (for
an exorbitant fee, of course). It is the demagogic argument of
entitlement that is ruining economies worldwide, mated with sheer
hypocritical cupidity, and it represents a clear and present danger to
science.
To sum up: GOOD journal editors must strive to reduce Type 1 error as
much as possible; this will naturally increase the Type 2 error which
these authors appear to resent, but the consequences to science of Type
2 errors are far less destructive than those of Type 1 errors. However
difficult in practice, our first concern should be SCIENCE, and not our
bruised egos when we've had a 'good' paper rejected. We don't reject a
system that protects science in favour of a system that protects our egos.
PG Beninger
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From:
>> Date: 2017-05-19 12:11 GMT-04:00
>> Subject: Editor bias in peer review
>> To:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I apologize for the cross listing. We are trying to cover as broad a
>> canvas as possible:
>>>> In the past years, journals have increased the responsibilities of
>> editors-in-chief to the point that they have become gatekeepers of
>> their publications. The bottom line is that papers get sent out to
>> peer reviewers only when editors say so, if they deem the article to
>> be "of broad enough interest" to their readers.
>>>> Clearly, there is a spectacular number of problems with this (though
>> we do not seem to talk about them). For one, systematic bias can be
>> introduced in a multitude of ways: what terrestrial researchers
>> consider "hot topics" of "general interest" may not be the same as
>> what freshwater or marine ones do. I keep glancing at the
>> plant-herbivore interactions literature seeing how marine papers often
>> cites terrestrial works, but not the other way around.
>>>> After talking to several colleagues, it seems that the trend is "I
>> (insert editors name) don't think this is of general interest but it
>> is really good, so I recommend you submit your manuscript to this
>> journal of also general interest (open access journal from our
>> publisher that costs you thousands of dollars to publish in)." This,
>> frankly, seems like a dishonest practice; if it is good enough for one
>> general ecology journal it should be for another. Have we exchanged
>> fashion for quality? We want to know your opinion.
>>>> We would like to compile data on the frequency of such cases. Our
>> hypothesis is that the definition of "general interest" or "worthy of
>> peer review" in ecology is completely arbitrary and we will be
>> designing an experiment to test this, but we would like to establish a
>> baseline by asking for cases in which authors have felt their papers
>> have been rejected out of bias rather than merit. In order to narrow
>> the field, it will be important to have articles that were published
>> in journals after "broader" journals rejected them without peer
>> review.
>>>> Your responses will be kept confidential,
>>>> Edwin
>>>> =================
>> Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera
>>>> Associate Professor
>>>> Department of Biological Sciences
>> University of the Virgin Islands
>>>> #2 John Brewers Bay
>> St. Thomas 00802
>>>> USVI
>> Tel: 1-340-693-1235
>> Fax: 1-340-693-1385
>>>> "It is not the same to hear the devil as to see him coming your way"
>>>> (Puerto Rican proverb)
>>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "molluscalist from lists.berkeley.edu" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to molluscalist+unsubscribe from lists.berkeley.edu.>>>> --
>>>>
