Dear Mx. Bishop,
While I understand your position, I take a different view. I am aware that some organisations seem to believe that rejection rate equals high quality. Serious journals and serious research organisations do not use this as a metric. The key metrics are impact factor and coverage in ISI Web of Science, Scopus, or both. If publishers and organisations use inappropriate metrics, I’d suggest choosing different target journals.
Nevertheless, general reader interest based on public journalism is not a valid criterion for choosing research articles. Recent news stories suggest that choosing articles based on “reader interest” rather than scientific value lead to scandals and retractions — often in the same newspapers that covered catchy but poorly reviewed articles. The New York Times recently published several articles on this problem: Editorial Board (2015), Roston (2015), Scheiber (2015).
Since you edit for journalistic reader interest while I edit a peer-reviewed research journal, we are in different fields. Our goals are different, and our standards and methods will differ. Since our background and editorial goals differ, I do not expect you to share my views. Since you are a journalist, however, I do expect that you should describe the editorial work of a research journal based on what actually takes place in the field.
In this respect, I disagree with your understanding of what it means to edit a research journal. The editor of a peer-reviewed research journal is far more than “a glorified review handler.” I am an editor and advisor for half a dozen peer reviewed journals, and editor-in-chief of a new journal, so I have some experience with research journals. Every editor makes a wide range of strategic and tactical decisions, working with editors, publishers, staff, and authors to realise the goals of the journal.
Two recent books describe the editorial process of a research journal in detail: Opening the Black Box of Editorship by Baruch, Konrad, Aguinis, and Starbuck (2008), and What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing by Benson and Silver (2013).
This is my second post on this topic. It is time for me to stop here and leave the floor to others.
Warm wishes,
Ken
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, Alison M. Konrad, Herman Aguinis, and William H. Starbuck. 2008. Opening the Black Box of Editorship. London: Palsgrave Macmillan.
Benson, Phillipa, and Susan Silver. 2013. What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing. (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Editorial Board. 2015. “Scientists Who Cheat.” The New York Times, June 1, 2015. URL
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/opinion/scientists-who-cheat.html?_r=0
Roston, Michael. 2015. “Retracted Scientific Studies: A Growing List.” New York Times, May 28, 2015. URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/28/science/retractions-scientific-studies.html
Scheiber, Noam. 2015. "Beyond Publish or Perish, Academic Papers Look to Make a Splash.” New York Times, May 31, 2015. URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/business/beyond-publish-or-perish-scientific-papers-look-to-make-splash.html?_r=0
—
Jonathan Bishop wrote:
—snip—
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.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
