5 ms·
I'm an editor at a journal, and these fake review cases have one thing in common, which is that the journal is using author suggestions for reviewers to solicit
by kem 9y ago
I'm an editor at a journal, and these fake review cases have one thing in common, which is that the journal is using author suggestions for reviewers to solicit reviews.
For those unfamiliar with the practice, this is common, and seems to becoming more standard at many journals, even (especially?) very reputable ones.
I almost always ignore the reviewer's requests for particular authors, because it always seems to involve a conflict of interest. I am sensitive to requests for a particular author not to review a paper, because of vindictiveness in academics, but requesting reviewers is a different story.
I've seen significant changes in this practice over time. Originally it seemed unusual, almost an option of last resort to cue the editor to bitter feuds or to help identify reviewers in areas that involve highly idiosyncratic issues. At a lot of journals this is still the case. Over time, though, it's seemed to turn into something different, a stopgap measure for overburdened, unconscientious, or harried editors to find increasingly scarce reviewers.
A lot of attention has been paid to the pressures on researchers to publish or perish, quality be damned, and how that affects science. The flip side of that coin, though, is changes in editorial practices at many journals, which have become very cursory, rubber-stamping affairs. Turnaround time on papers is very quick at many journals, which gives authors quick feedback, but at the same time (not necessarily as a result) the review process has become shoddy. Editors are often unfamiliar with the subject material and don't take time to learn it, will grasp at reviewers who might be unqualified or have conflicts of interest, and treat reviews very superficially, even though studies have shown that they are horribly unreliable. To be fair, even finding reviewers can be difficult: I've had conversations with colleagues who have been told not to review because it doesn't bring in revenue to the department. Everyone wants to publish, but not everyone wants to review.
Things are broken in science at the moment, at least in academics. Publishing through peer review has become extremely overvalued. I think it will maintain its place for certain reasons, but some change in mindset or culture around it is necessary.
- michaelhoffman 9y agoIt's one thing to take author suggestions for peer reviewers--it's another thing altogether to use the contact details they supply also. Especially when they supply a gmail address for someone who should have a institutional affiliation. It's like calling the number left in a voicemail rather than the one on your bank's web site.
- fabian2k 9y agoI still find it almost unbelievable that supplying fake addresses for reviewers worked as often as it did in this case. One suspicion I had when reading about this was that maybe there is something particular to how the software works this journal used to manage reviews. Maybe it made it especially easy to just use the mail addresses the authors provided and send automatic mails, or maybe it hid the actual address by default. Otherwise my only explanation would be that the editors simply didn't care at all.
- michaelhoffman 9y agoMany manuscript management systems I've used ask for email address for the suggested reviewers. It's a really bad idea. The editor should do at least minimal checking of the reviewer's position and expertise, and having an email ready to go in the system facilitates skipping that.
- kem 9y agoGood point. Finding contact information for certain individuals is more difficult than it might seem initially, though. Especially if someone has left the academic setting per se: a common pattern is for people to leave and go to a business or hospital setting, where real contact information can be guarded heavily. You might see that so-and-so works at such-and-such place (maybe), but not be able to find a working contact address, and might not even see a reasonable way to figure it out. You're right that using the author-supplied contact info of a potential reviewer is doubly problematic and probably shouldn't be done. However, at some level I can understand why that happens, because the process often devolves into some chain of contacts to get a working email address anyway.
- pizza_boy 9y agoYou might be interested in the Publons Academy [1] -- which we are launching tomorrow -- and some of the other tools we've built to improve the review process (e.g., more trustworthy contact methods) and formally recognise reviewers. I'm a founder. Very interested in your feedback on what we need to be doing. [1] https://publons.com/academy/ https://publons.com/academy/
- jacquesm 9y agoIf I may make a small suggestion: do this under your real name, it will help your credibility tremendously, 'pizza_boy' is not going to help you to get people to believe you are serious.
- sevensor 9y agoThis would explain why I continue to be asked to do reviews despite having a tiny publication record and having left academia once I finished the Ph.D. I had no idea editors were so desperate. Personally I'm pretty happy to review because it helps me stay current, but I know how busy academics are. (Which is among the reasons I got out!)
- lancewiggs 9y agoThe system that demands reviewers and writers don't get paid, while journal publishers increase prices, is broken. Perhaps the industry should pay its contributors.