Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?

Autores
Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas
Año de publicación
2014
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Progress in ecological research is basically driven by the publication of studies in peer reviewed journals. However, competition for space in high-ranking journals is severe, and these journals require an objective way to accept the best works. This “objective way” is based on the traditional peer review process. To evaluate the quality of a manuscript, it is sent to several specialists in the same field, and the editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and his/her own opinion. Overall, in a good peer review process everybody wins: the author improves her/his knowledge, and the scientific community reads a better paper; even if the manuscript is finally submitted to a different journal. However, more and more ecological journals are skipping this fruitful process and rejecting some papers based only on the opinion of one person: the subject-editor. This practice is becoming more common despite criticisms related to its subjectivity and inappropriateness (Farji-Brener 2007, Bornmann and Hans-Dieter 2010, Arnqvist 2013). The key argument to favor rejections without peer review is that subject-editors (hereafter “editors”) are able to easily identify the best works among the submitted manuscripts (Strong 2007). Therefore, editors reject papers that “definitively” would have received negative revisions if they were sent to reviewers. In other words, editors are considering themselves as good “oracles” in the task of guessing the opinion of external reviewers about the quality of a manuscript. We tested this assumption by monitoring the final destiny of a large number of papers that were first rejected without revisions by an editor.
Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; Argentina
Fil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; Argentina
Materia
Academic
Peer Review
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/11653
Acceder
id CONICETDig_1d4b2cf87922be35a9a3fd15c68dd53d
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/11653
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?Farji Brener, Alejandro GustavoKitzberger, ThomasAcademicPeer Reviewhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Progress in ecological research is basically driven by the publication of studies in peer reviewed journals. However, competition for space in high-ranking journals is severe, and these journals require an objective way to accept the best works. This “objective way” is based on the traditional peer review process. To evaluate the quality of a manuscript, it is sent to several specialists in the same field, and the editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and his/her own opinion. Overall, in a good peer review process everybody wins: the author improves her/his knowledge, and the scientific community reads a better paper; even if the manuscript is finally submitted to a different journal. However, more and more ecological journals are skipping this fruitful process and rejecting some papers based only on the opinion of one person: the subject-editor. This practice is becoming more common despite criticisms related to its subjectivity and inappropriateness (Farji-Brener 2007, Bornmann and Hans-Dieter 2010, Arnqvist 2013). The key argument to favor rejections without peer review is that subject-editors (hereafter “editors”) are able to easily identify the best works among the submitted manuscripts (Strong 2007). Therefore, editors reject papers that “definitively” would have received negative revisions if they were sent to reviewers. In other words, editors are considering themselves as good “oracles” in the task of guessing the opinion of external reviewers about the quality of a manuscript. We tested this assumption by monitoring the final destiny of a large number of papers that were first rejected without revisions by an editor.Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; ArgentinaFil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; ArgentinaWiley2014-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/11653Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?; Wiley; Bulletin Ecological Society Of America; 65; 3; 7-2014; 238–2420012-9623enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.238/fullinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.238info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T14:21:05Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/11653instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-15 14:21:05.918CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
title Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
spellingShingle Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo
Academic
Peer Review
title_short Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
title_full Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
title_fullStr Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
title_full_unstemmed Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
title_sort Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo
Kitzberger, Thomas
author Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo
author_facet Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo
Kitzberger, Thomas
author_role author
author2 Kitzberger, Thomas
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Academic
Peer Review
topic Academic
Peer Review
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Progress in ecological research is basically driven by the publication of studies in peer reviewed journals. However, competition for space in high-ranking journals is severe, and these journals require an objective way to accept the best works. This “objective way” is based on the traditional peer review process. To evaluate the quality of a manuscript, it is sent to several specialists in the same field, and the editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and his/her own opinion. Overall, in a good peer review process everybody wins: the author improves her/his knowledge, and the scientific community reads a better paper; even if the manuscript is finally submitted to a different journal. However, more and more ecological journals are skipping this fruitful process and rejecting some papers based only on the opinion of one person: the subject-editor. This practice is becoming more common despite criticisms related to its subjectivity and inappropriateness (Farji-Brener 2007, Bornmann and Hans-Dieter 2010, Arnqvist 2013). The key argument to favor rejections without peer review is that subject-editors (hereafter “editors”) are able to easily identify the best works among the submitted manuscripts (Strong 2007). Therefore, editors reject papers that “definitively” would have received negative revisions if they were sent to reviewers. In other words, editors are considering themselves as good “oracles” in the task of guessing the opinion of external reviewers about the quality of a manuscript. We tested this assumption by monitoring the final destiny of a large number of papers that were first rejected without revisions by an editor.
Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; Argentina
Fil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; Argentina
description Progress in ecological research is basically driven by the publication of studies in peer reviewed journals. However, competition for space in high-ranking journals is severe, and these journals require an objective way to accept the best works. This “objective way” is based on the traditional peer review process. To evaluate the quality of a manuscript, it is sent to several specialists in the same field, and the editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and his/her own opinion. Overall, in a good peer review process everybody wins: the author improves her/his knowledge, and the scientific community reads a better paper; even if the manuscript is finally submitted to a different journal. However, more and more ecological journals are skipping this fruitful process and rejecting some papers based only on the opinion of one person: the subject-editor. This practice is becoming more common despite criticisms related to its subjectivity and inappropriateness (Farji-Brener 2007, Bornmann and Hans-Dieter 2010, Arnqvist 2013). The key argument to favor rejections without peer review is that subject-editors (hereafter “editors”) are able to easily identify the best works among the submitted manuscripts (Strong 2007). Therefore, editors reject papers that “definitively” would have received negative revisions if they were sent to reviewers. In other words, editors are considering themselves as good “oracles” in the task of guessing the opinion of external reviewers about the quality of a manuscript. We tested this assumption by monitoring the final destiny of a large number of papers that were first rejected without revisions by an editor.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-07
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/11653
Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?; Wiley; Bulletin Ecological Society Of America; 65; 3; 7-2014; 238–242
0012-9623
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/11653
identifier_str_mv Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?; Wiley; Bulletin Ecological Society Of America; 65; 3; 7-2014; 238–242
0012-9623
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.238/full
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.238
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846082595456024576
score 13.22299

Publicaciones similares