5 ms·

And don't forget all the really nasty political things going on in the backstage of big 3 journals (Nature, Science & Cell). Big PIs often reach agreements with

by nextos 9y ago

And don't forget all the really nasty political things going on in the backstage of big 3 journals (Nature, Science & Cell). Big PIs often reach agreements with editors before writing their papers.

anonymousDan 9y ago
Say what? Could you elaborate?
kobeya 9y ago
Citations?
- nextos 9y ago
  Well I can't cite anything, I'm just talking about my experience and things I've seen first hand many many times. If you're a PI on a big project or heading a big group, it's routine business to meet journal editors, invite them to your lab and reach publication agreements before writing your paper. Obviously the paper will still go to review. But even that is already a big hurdle you have bypassed. In the big 3 journals, it's equally tough to get to review than to pass reviews once there. Plus, with direct contact to the editor, it's easier to get your paper reviewed by friendlier peers and/or influence ultimate editorial decisions.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    That would be scandalous headline news if true.
    - Myrmornis 9y ago
      It's standard in human genetics, at least in the UK. The editors of Nature have a close relationship with influential PIs and their labs, are present at social events / parties, and the general direction and appropriateness/desirability of papers are certainly discussed with the editors early in the process. These are projects with large budgets that span several years. Of course, there is still peer review, and it is still rigorous.
      - kobeya 9y ago
        I can't speak for the UK, but in the government-managed science programs of other countries this behavior would be landing people in prison, standard practice or not.
        fsloth 9y ago
        What makes it illegal? I mean, what specific law would make it so? Where exactly?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - qfwfq_ 9y ago
    I've also seen this happen, where an article was designed in pre-consultation with a journal editor in my field. We submitted (what I felt was) a dubious paper initially. Reviews were very harsh, but the paper was not rejected. I was amazed we had four months to revise and resub. It was eventually published. I was an early grad student at the time, so I didn't know that this was unusual.
- mizzao 9y ago
  This is true in my experience as well - most papers to these vanity journals are rejected without review by the editor ("desk reject"), and a prior relationship between a PI and the editor basically guarantees you will sail past that stage.
ptero 9y ago
I guess anything is possible but I doubt that those journals, who depend so much on their perception of quality would so easily compromise it. If this is confirmed it would be a business disaster for them. What to me would sound less unlikely (and I am totally on the outside of all of this), if PIs take into account editor's interests and preferences -- that is, if you know that editor is interested in topic A (say, oxygen on exoplanets) you might lean in that direction with the paper you hope to publish there (e.g., in abstract / intro / conclusion stress how your research supports existence or lack thereof of oxygen). Also not impossible to know if an issue is dedicated to a specific grand theme, so articles on that have a significantly higher acceptance chance. Whether this is 100% kosher or not can be debated, but this is far, far off from agreements that a journal will publish whatever a specific researcher writes.
- DaveWalk 9y ago
  By nature (ahem), editors of these journals are responsible for what goes in their pages. Decisions of what to run have some motive - you can call them "political," or "profit-driven." But this has always been there. If an editor thinks your research isn't in the cutting edge, it won't get published. There used to be an override mechanism (in PNAS, Academy members could recommend others' papers for review). If you need anecdotal examples, I'm sure we can provide some :)

by nextos 9y ago

And don't forget all the really nasty political things going on in the backstage of big 3 journals (Nature, Science & Cell). Big PIs often reach agreements with editors before writing their papers.

anonymousDan 9y ago

Say what? Could you elaborate?

kobeya 9y ago

Citations?

nextos 9y ago
Well I can't cite anything, I'm just talking about my experience and things I've seen first hand many many times. If you're a PI on a big project or heading a big group, it's routine business to meet journal editors, invite them to your lab and reach publication agreements before writing your paper. Obviously the paper will still go to review. But even that is already a big hurdle you have bypassed. In the big 3 journals, it's equally tough to get to review than to pass reviews once there. Plus, with direct contact to the editor, it's easier to get your paper reviewed by friendlier peers and/or influence ultimate editorial decisions.
- kobeya 9y ago
  That would be scandalous headline news if true.
  - Myrmornis 9y ago
    It's standard in human genetics, at least in the UK. The editors of Nature have a close relationship with influential PIs and their labs, are present at social events / parties, and the general direction and appropriateness/desirability of papers are certainly discussed with the editors early in the process. These are projects with large budgets that span several years. Of course, there is still peer review, and it is still rigorous.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      I can't speak for the UK, but in the government-managed science programs of other countries this behavior would be landing people in prison, standard practice or not.
      - fsloth 9y ago
        What makes it illegal? I mean, what specific law would make it so? Where exactly?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- qfwfq_ 9y ago
  I've also seen this happen, where an article was designed in pre-consultation with a journal editor in my field. We submitted (what I felt was) a dubious paper initially. Reviews were very harsh, but the paper was not rejected. I was amazed we had four months to revise and resub. It was eventually published. I was an early grad student at the time, so I didn't know that this was unusual.
mizzao 9y ago
This is true in my experience as well - most papers to these vanity journals are rejected without review by the editor ("desk reject"), and a prior relationship between a PI and the editor basically guarantees you will sail past that stage.

ptero 9y ago

I guess anything is possible but I doubt that those journals, who depend so much on their perception of quality would so easily compromise it. If this is confirmed it would be a business disaster for them. What to me would sound less unlikely (and I am totally on the outside of all of this), if PIs take into account editor's interests and preferences -- that is, if you know that editor is interested in topic A (say, oxygen on exoplanets) you might lean in that direction with the paper you hope to publish there (e.g., in abstract / intro / conclusion stress how your research supports existence or lack thereof of oxygen). Also not impossible to know if an issue is dedicated to a specific grand theme, so articles on that have a significantly higher acceptance chance. Whether this is 100% kosher or not can be debated, but this is far, far off from agreements that a journal will publish whatever a specific researcher writes.

DaveWalk 9y ago
By nature (ahem), editors of these journals are responsible for what goes in their pages. Decisions of what to run have some motive - you can call them "political," or "profit-driven." But this has always been there. If an editor thinks your research isn't in the cutting edge, it won't get published. There used to be an override mechanism (in PNAS, Academy members could recommend others' papers for review). If you need anecdotal examples, I'm sure we can provide some :)