Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections

Autores
Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas
Año de publicación
2015
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally accepted in journals of similar ranking to which they were originally submitted. We thus concluded that editors appear to be “poor oracles” with regards to being able evaluate the quality of a manuscript without the help of external reviewers. This article was recently criticized by the team of editors of the Ecological Society of America. In this work, we clarify some misunderstandings and offer new evidence supporting our view that external reviews should be the rule in the process of publishing scientific literature. Specifically, here we argue that (a) the claim that editorial rejections are based on manuscripts not adjusting to the journal’s scope rather than on academic quality is unconvincing; (b) if academic quality is being assessed to decide the fate of a submitted paper, this attribute must be evaluated including several external opinions and not only the superficial reading of one person, (c) our survey design was appropriate and, despite the small sample size, the conclusion that editors are poor oracles seems to be fairly reliable and, (d) the practice of sending the majority of submitted papers to external review should not cause the collapse of most popular journals. We insist that for the sake of science, editors need the opinion of external experts and should not act as oracles.
Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina
Fil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina
Materia
ACADEMIC QUALITY
PEER REVIEW PROCCESS
EDITORIAL REJECTIONS
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:11336/12126
Acceder
id CONICETDig_c2478493c5c8d11b08fab8312551a476
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/12126
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejectionsFarji Brener, Alejandro GustavoKitzberger, ThomasACADEMIC QUALITYPEER REVIEW PROCCESSEDITORIAL REJECTIONShttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally accepted in journals of similar ranking to which they were originally submitted. We thus concluded that editors appear to be “poor oracles” with regards to being able evaluate the quality of a manuscript without the help of external reviewers. This article was recently criticized by the team of editors of the Ecological Society of America. In this work, we clarify some misunderstandings and offer new evidence supporting our view that external reviews should be the rule in the process of publishing scientific literature. Specifically, here we argue that (a) the claim that editorial rejections are based on manuscripts not adjusting to the journal’s scope rather than on academic quality is unconvincing; (b) if academic quality is being assessed to decide the fate of a submitted paper, this attribute must be evaluated including several external opinions and not only the superficial reading of one person, (c) our survey design was appropriate and, despite the small sample size, the conclusion that editors are poor oracles seems to be fairly reliable and, (d) the practice of sending the majority of submitted papers to external review should not cause the collapse of most popular journals. We insist that for the sake of science, editors need the opinion of external experts and should not act as oracles.Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaQueen's University2015info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/12126Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections; Queen's University; Ideas In Ecology and Evolution; 8; 1; -1-2015; 1-61918-3178enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.4033/iee.2015.8.1.finfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/IEE/article/view/5514info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T15:41:15Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/12126instacron: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 15:41:15.578CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
title Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
spellingShingle Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo
ACADEMIC QUALITY
PEER REVIEW PROCCESS
EDITORIAL REJECTIONS
title_short Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
title_full Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
title_fullStr Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
title_full_unstemmed Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
title_sort Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
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 QUALITY
PEER REVIEW PROCCESS
EDITORIAL REJECTIONS
topic ACADEMIC QUALITY
PEER REVIEW PROCCESS
EDITORIAL REJECTIONS
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally accepted in journals of similar ranking to which they were originally submitted. We thus concluded that editors appear to be “poor oracles” with regards to being able evaluate the quality of a manuscript without the help of external reviewers. This article was recently criticized by the team of editors of the Ecological Society of America. In this work, we clarify some misunderstandings and offer new evidence supporting our view that external reviews should be the rule in the process of publishing scientific literature. Specifically, here we argue that (a) the claim that editorial rejections are based on manuscripts not adjusting to the journal’s scope rather than on academic quality is unconvincing; (b) if academic quality is being assessed to decide the fate of a submitted paper, this attribute must be evaluated including several external opinions and not only the superficial reading of one person, (c) our survey design was appropriate and, despite the small sample size, the conclusion that editors are poor oracles seems to be fairly reliable and, (d) the practice of sending the majority of submitted papers to external review should not cause the collapse of most popular journals. We insist that for the sake of science, editors need the opinion of external experts and should not act as oracles.
Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina
Fil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina
description In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally accepted in journals of similar ranking to which they were originally submitted. We thus concluded that editors appear to be “poor oracles” with regards to being able evaluate the quality of a manuscript without the help of external reviewers. This article was recently criticized by the team of editors of the Ecological Society of America. In this work, we clarify some misunderstandings and offer new evidence supporting our view that external reviews should be the rule in the process of publishing scientific literature. Specifically, here we argue that (a) the claim that editorial rejections are based on manuscripts not adjusting to the journal’s scope rather than on academic quality is unconvincing; (b) if academic quality is being assessed to decide the fate of a submitted paper, this attribute must be evaluated including several external opinions and not only the superficial reading of one person, (c) our survey design was appropriate and, despite the small sample size, the conclusion that editors are poor oracles seems to be fairly reliable and, (d) the practice of sending the majority of submitted papers to external review should not cause the collapse of most popular journals. We insist that for the sake of science, editors need the opinion of external experts and should not act as oracles.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015
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/11336/12126
Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections; Queen's University; Ideas In Ecology and Evolution; 8; 1; -1-2015; 1-6
1918-3178
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/12126
identifier_str_mv Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections; Queen's University; Ideas In Ecology and Evolution; 8; 1; -1-2015; 1-6
1918-3178
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.4033/iee.2015.8.1.f
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/IEE/article/view/5514
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 Queen's University
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Queen's University
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_ 1846083523864166400
score 13.22299

Publicaciones similares