Dear Ken,
Firstly, please do not call me Mr. Bishop. If you wish to use
pre-nominals please address me as Mx. Bishop or Freeman Bishop, for the
present time. I do not agree with being gendered.
I have had publications of mine criticised by anonymous reviewers because
of the publisher having a 67% acceptance rate. Equally, I have been
a member of organisations who in relation to their publications have asked
what they can do to get their acceptance rate down. So even if you are not
aware of it as a metric, others in academia still use it.
You misinterpret my definition of "quality control." I have been a
journalist in various forms since 1999. For me whether something is
published should be on the basis of whether it will be interesting to
readers. All the other issues around rigour, including those you mention,
can be resolved by the use of reviewers and advising authors directly.
I see myself as an editor in the journalist sense, as someone who works
with authors to improve their papers, and not a glorified review handler as
many others seem to be.
Jonathan Bishop
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FCLIP, FBCS CITP
Author of over 75 research publications.
Editor of Examining the Concepts, Issues and Implications of Internet
Trolling, Transforming Politics and Policy in the Digital Age, and
Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Educational and
Psychological Issues
Envoyé par mon ordinateur
On Saturday, 6 June 2015, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Bishop,
>
> Thank you for your reply. In my view, you seem to have misinterpreted what
> I wrote. I did not state that editors should decide on the merits of the
> paper prior to review. I wrote that journal editors must “ensure that
> articles conformed to journal standards prior to review.”
>
> This means that articles must conform to the journal style guide, meet
> basic standards for relevance, fit, language, and possibility of
> publication.
>
> Reviewers in a serious research journal do far more than “quality
> control.” Reviewers play a significant role in developing an article for
> publication. Reviewing requires a serious commitment of time. Reviewer time
> is one of the most important resources of any journal. Journal editors
> should respect and conserve this resource. This is why editors must ensure
> that articles are *ready* for review. Editors must not substitute their own
> judgement for that of the reviewers.
>
> Two books offer a rich overview of the review process: Baruch, Sullivan,
> and Schepmyer (2006) Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly
> Writing, and Cummings and Frost (1995) Publishing in the Organisation
> Sciences.
>
> I must gently disagree with two comments.
>
> First, editors do not send bad articles to review to inflate the rejection
> rate. The journal rejection rate applies to all rejected articles, before
> review of after. If an editor rejects an article because the authors do not
> use the journal referencing style, it appears in rejection rate statistics
> just as if it had been rejected by reviewers for the same reason.
>
> Second, there is no “need in academia to have high rejection rates.” If an
> editor were fortunate enough to receive only first-rate articles from
> elegant writers, these would not be rejected even if it took time to get
> them all into print. Editors hope to publish important articles that will
> be widely read and highly cited. Journals do not measure prestige based on
> the rejection rate. They measure prestige based on impact. This is either
> the formal impact factor of journals indexed in the ISI Web of Science, or
> comparable factors for journals that are not indexed for formal impact
> factor evaluation.
>
> Because many authors submit articles that no journal should publish, most
> good journals have a significant rejection rate. The best known and most
> prestigious journals have the highest rejection rate because they are the
> target for the greatest number of authors.
>
> The multidisciplinary journal Nature is a good example. Nature is among
> the most highly cited journals in the world. The journal has an impact fact
> of 42.351. According to long-term statistics, the editors of Nature reject
> 60% of all articles without sending them to review. 40% of all articles go
> to peer review. The journal publishes about 7% of all submissions, for a
> 93% rejection rate.
>
> By way of comparison in the design field, Design Studies has the highest
> impact factor for a design journal at 1.304 and a five-year impact factor
> of 1.732. Another impact factor for a design journal is the International
> Journal of Design, with a two-year impact factor of 0.955. The acceptance
> rate is 13% and the rejection rate is 87%. While IJD is not all that far
> away from Nature in acceptance rate, however the impact factor is
> significantly different. This is because many more people read and cite
> Nature. Design Studies and International Journal of Design are among the
> most respected in our field, along with Design Issues, an ISI indexed
> journal without a formal impact factor. Even so, articles in Design Issues
> are comparably visible, widely read, and highly cited. While nearly
> everyone in the design field reads these three journals, colleagues across
> most fields read Nature.
>
> It is impact factor and not rejection rate that establishes the global
> standing and relative academic prestige of a journal.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>
> --
>
> References
>
> Baruch, Yehudi, Sherry E. Sullivan, and Hazlon N. Schepmyer. 2006. Winning
> Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing. London: Palsgrave
> Macmillan.
>
> Cummings, L. L. and Peter J. Frost. 1995. Publishing in the Organisation
> Sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Jonathan Bishop
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM
FRSS, FRAI, FRSA, FCLIP, FBCS CITP
Author of over 75 research publications.
Editor of Examining the Concepts, Issues and Implications of Internet
Trolling, Transforming Politics and Policy in the Digital Age, and
Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Educational and
Psychological Issues
Envoyé par mon ordinateur
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
