Lying about submission times at other journals?
October 8, 2012
Folks,
In response to our recent post about reject-when-you-mean-revise and submission-date massaging at Royal Society journals, Susie Maidment tweeted:
@H_Mallison as far as I can tell this is pretty much standard practise for high impact journals. Doesn't make it ok though—
Susie Maidment (@Tweetisaurus) October 04, 2012
Since then I have heard from several other sources — including Stuart Taylor, Head of Publishing and Commercial Director of the Royal Society — that these practices are widespread.
Can anyone confirm this from their own experience?
It needs to be stamped out wherever it happens.
October 8, 2012 at 11:33 am
I have had one other case that I found suspicious, but it is too shake to name names.
Aside from that, Naturwissenschaften (Springer Verlag) outright says they won’t take major revisions but ask for re-submissions (i.e., they are honest about rejecting criteria). These re-submissions ALWAYS go through a new review, though, which makes the case non-comparable and non-problematic.
October 8, 2012 at 11:42 am
Right. Not comparable. And I assume that is Naturwissenschaften wants only minor revisions, that’s what it asks for?
October 8, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Exactly. They are brutal but honest.
October 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm
[...] Lying about submission times at other journals? [...]
October 16, 2012 at 9:16 am
Ah, I missed this post and replied to an earlier thread. In short, yes, I’ve had this at other journals but am now wondering if I should have named them.
October 16, 2012 at 9:23 am
Yes, thanks for your comment on the other thread. I think you were absolutely right to name the journal in question: no purpose is served by allowing journals that misbehave to hide behind a veil of secrecy.