How to force a journal to address an associate editor's scientific misconduct?












9














My manuscript, submitted to a high-rank and very respectable journal, has been rejected by a referee. From the referee's report one could make a conjecture that the referee is one of my competitors, whose results are far inferior to mine. A second referee also rejected my work by giving an absurd argument. It is not an emotional exaggeration, the absurdity of the second referee's argument should be obvious to anybody graduating a university. The editors agreed with such reports, despite the fact that all my arguments have been completely ignored by the referees. I appealed and my manuscript was considered by one of the associate editors. And now is the most interesting part.



The associate editor agreed with the referees and added his own argument against my work. But in this case his real name is known. He happened to be a very famous scientist. Knowing the name, it is very easy to find out his own works on the topic in question. Surprisingly, at the same time I submitted my manuscript, he (associate editor) published two papers in this and higher-rank journals where he stated exactly the opposite to what he wrote in his report to reject my work. Even after he had written his report, he continued to publish and give talks where he states the same point of view (which is the opposite to that of he wrote in his report). If my conjecture concerning the first referee's identity is correct, he is a coauthor of some of the associate editor's works and the associate editor just wants to help him to reject competing superior results.



I collected all these facts, presented them to the editors of the journal and accused that associate editor of scientific misconduct (because what he wrote in his report is a deliberate lie, supposedly in collusion with the referee, or even with both referees). After two months, I received a short message that the Editor in Chief will decide what to do in this case. Up to now there is no reply. It seems that the editors simply want to hush this incident up.



This journal is one of the oldest and most respectable journals in its field. Is there a way to change this situation and force the editors to report this incident and disclose the identities of the unfair referees?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • How long ago did you hear that it would be handled by the EiC?
    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago










  • Are you absolutely sure that you're right and they're wrong (in terms of results)? That doesn't jump out from your post and is something that you should be certain of. (Perhaps you are and you just didn't think to mention it. Or perhaps I missed it!)
    – user2768
    4 hours ago
















9














My manuscript, submitted to a high-rank and very respectable journal, has been rejected by a referee. From the referee's report one could make a conjecture that the referee is one of my competitors, whose results are far inferior to mine. A second referee also rejected my work by giving an absurd argument. It is not an emotional exaggeration, the absurdity of the second referee's argument should be obvious to anybody graduating a university. The editors agreed with such reports, despite the fact that all my arguments have been completely ignored by the referees. I appealed and my manuscript was considered by one of the associate editors. And now is the most interesting part.



The associate editor agreed with the referees and added his own argument against my work. But in this case his real name is known. He happened to be a very famous scientist. Knowing the name, it is very easy to find out his own works on the topic in question. Surprisingly, at the same time I submitted my manuscript, he (associate editor) published two papers in this and higher-rank journals where he stated exactly the opposite to what he wrote in his report to reject my work. Even after he had written his report, he continued to publish and give talks where he states the same point of view (which is the opposite to that of he wrote in his report). If my conjecture concerning the first referee's identity is correct, he is a coauthor of some of the associate editor's works and the associate editor just wants to help him to reject competing superior results.



I collected all these facts, presented them to the editors of the journal and accused that associate editor of scientific misconduct (because what he wrote in his report is a deliberate lie, supposedly in collusion with the referee, or even with both referees). After two months, I received a short message that the Editor in Chief will decide what to do in this case. Up to now there is no reply. It seems that the editors simply want to hush this incident up.



This journal is one of the oldest and most respectable journals in its field. Is there a way to change this situation and force the editors to report this incident and disclose the identities of the unfair referees?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • How long ago did you hear that it would be handled by the EiC?
    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago










  • Are you absolutely sure that you're right and they're wrong (in terms of results)? That doesn't jump out from your post and is something that you should be certain of. (Perhaps you are and you just didn't think to mention it. Or perhaps I missed it!)
    – user2768
    4 hours ago














9












9








9


3





My manuscript, submitted to a high-rank and very respectable journal, has been rejected by a referee. From the referee's report one could make a conjecture that the referee is one of my competitors, whose results are far inferior to mine. A second referee also rejected my work by giving an absurd argument. It is not an emotional exaggeration, the absurdity of the second referee's argument should be obvious to anybody graduating a university. The editors agreed with such reports, despite the fact that all my arguments have been completely ignored by the referees. I appealed and my manuscript was considered by one of the associate editors. And now is the most interesting part.



The associate editor agreed with the referees and added his own argument against my work. But in this case his real name is known. He happened to be a very famous scientist. Knowing the name, it is very easy to find out his own works on the topic in question. Surprisingly, at the same time I submitted my manuscript, he (associate editor) published two papers in this and higher-rank journals where he stated exactly the opposite to what he wrote in his report to reject my work. Even after he had written his report, he continued to publish and give talks where he states the same point of view (which is the opposite to that of he wrote in his report). If my conjecture concerning the first referee's identity is correct, he is a coauthor of some of the associate editor's works and the associate editor just wants to help him to reject competing superior results.



I collected all these facts, presented them to the editors of the journal and accused that associate editor of scientific misconduct (because what he wrote in his report is a deliberate lie, supposedly in collusion with the referee, or even with both referees). After two months, I received a short message that the Editor in Chief will decide what to do in this case. Up to now there is no reply. It seems that the editors simply want to hush this incident up.



This journal is one of the oldest and most respectable journals in its field. Is there a way to change this situation and force the editors to report this incident and disclose the identities of the unfair referees?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











My manuscript, submitted to a high-rank and very respectable journal, has been rejected by a referee. From the referee's report one could make a conjecture that the referee is one of my competitors, whose results are far inferior to mine. A second referee also rejected my work by giving an absurd argument. It is not an emotional exaggeration, the absurdity of the second referee's argument should be obvious to anybody graduating a university. The editors agreed with such reports, despite the fact that all my arguments have been completely ignored by the referees. I appealed and my manuscript was considered by one of the associate editors. And now is the most interesting part.



The associate editor agreed with the referees and added his own argument against my work. But in this case his real name is known. He happened to be a very famous scientist. Knowing the name, it is very easy to find out his own works on the topic in question. Surprisingly, at the same time I submitted my manuscript, he (associate editor) published two papers in this and higher-rank journals where he stated exactly the opposite to what he wrote in his report to reject my work. Even after he had written his report, he continued to publish and give talks where he states the same point of view (which is the opposite to that of he wrote in his report). If my conjecture concerning the first referee's identity is correct, he is a coauthor of some of the associate editor's works and the associate editor just wants to help him to reject competing superior results.



I collected all these facts, presented them to the editors of the journal and accused that associate editor of scientific misconduct (because what he wrote in his report is a deliberate lie, supposedly in collusion with the referee, or even with both referees). After two months, I received a short message that the Editor in Chief will decide what to do in this case. Up to now there is no reply. It seems that the editors simply want to hush this incident up.



This journal is one of the oldest and most respectable journals in its field. Is there a way to change this situation and force the editors to report this incident and disclose the identities of the unfair referees?







publications paper-submission rejection






share|improve this question









New contributor




Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 41 mins ago









cag51

11.3k42449




11.3k42449






New contributor




Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









Kevin Hayes

491




491




New contributor




Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • How long ago did you hear that it would be handled by the EiC?
    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago










  • Are you absolutely sure that you're right and they're wrong (in terms of results)? That doesn't jump out from your post and is something that you should be certain of. (Perhaps you are and you just didn't think to mention it. Or perhaps I missed it!)
    – user2768
    4 hours ago


















  • How long ago did you hear that it would be handled by the EiC?
    – StrongBad
    4 hours ago










  • Are you absolutely sure that you're right and they're wrong (in terms of results)? That doesn't jump out from your post and is something that you should be certain of. (Perhaps you are and you just didn't think to mention it. Or perhaps I missed it!)
    – user2768
    4 hours ago
















How long ago did you hear that it would be handled by the EiC?
– StrongBad
4 hours ago




How long ago did you hear that it would be handled by the EiC?
– StrongBad
4 hours ago












Are you absolutely sure that you're right and they're wrong (in terms of results)? That doesn't jump out from your post and is something that you should be certain of. (Perhaps you are and you just didn't think to mention it. Or perhaps I missed it!)
– user2768
4 hours ago




Are you absolutely sure that you're right and they're wrong (in terms of results)? That doesn't jump out from your post and is something that you should be certain of. (Perhaps you are and you just didn't think to mention it. Or perhaps I missed it!)
– user2768
4 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














I am going to start in the middle of the story and work to the end and then jump back to the beginning.



Some time ago you reported to the editorial board of a journal that you believed an associate editor had engaged in scientific misconduct. After 2 months you received notification that the EiC would be handling the situation. It has been an unknown amount of time since the report has been forwarded to the EiC. Charges of academic misconduct are serious and I would expect most journals to follow up on them. Two months seems a reasonable time for the editorial board to come to the conclusion that the EiC needs to get involved. From there, it would not surprise me if it took 6-12 months to resolve the issue.



To the resolve the issue a number of things need to happen. The EiC probably needs to review the policies regarding charges of academic misconduct. They probably need to run the policies by the legal department to make sure everything is legit. Then they probably need to send all the manuscript correspondence to a trusted independent expert to review and provide insight. Then they need to pass everything by legal again. They are likely under no legal obligation to follow though at all and may not even tell you the outcome.



You can continue to follow up with the EiC to let them know you have not dropped the issue. I would not follow up more frequently than every 3-6 months. How quickly things will get resolved depends to an extent on how seriously the EiC takes your claim. This brings us back to the first part of the story ...



Scientific misconduct is a serious charge and something that ruins careers. If the AE plagiarized your manuscript, that would be academic misconduct. Writing an overly negative review to sabotage the publication of a paper is not nice, but probably does not constitute scientific or academic misconduct. Journals allow editors and reviewers with pretty extensive conflicts of interest to be involved in the publication process. Before pursuing this even further, you should get some colleagues who understand the work to give you some frank advice regarding any potential misconduct regarding the process.






share|improve this answer





























    4














    This is a tough situation to be in. I’m so sorry!



    I’d say sending another polite but firm letter to the editors stating that you have facts to back you up. If still no response, get someone involved. Do you know anyone senior who’ll back you up? Do you have colleagues who will be able to reach out to such people? If the journal is affiliated with a society (like the ACM), you could possibly get them involved too.



    This is all predicated on your story being as you tell it, and that you have factual evidence to back you up. The truth is that it is often very difficult to prove such allegations and the reviewer/editor could just say that you misunderstood and the paper was rejected because of some other reason. I’d be mentally prepared to lose this battle if I were you, and if you don’t have strong factual backing then it may hurt you more than it does them.






    share|improve this answer





























      -1














      Spark, thank you for your quick reply! I fully understand that it is a tough situation, so I do not mention the journal and the associate editor. It is really difficult to prove bad intentions of the referees if you don't know who they are. If you know their names, as it is the case when you appeal, you can easily check their works. In my case the situation is crystal-clear - the associate editor follows the line of research which he said is inefficient and that is why he rejected my manuscript. Moreover, his research (his papers appeared online the same month I submitted my manuscript!) was praised as a breakthrough result, but in his report he writes that this direction is inefficient and should not be followed. I don't see how one can say that it is a misunderstanding, especially if my conjecture concerning the referee identity is correct. If it is correct, that person also has recent publications which follow the direction called as "inefficient" by the associate editor. Of course, the editors of the journal know the names of the referees, and all these facts mean that they also participate in this lie.



      I can survive without this publication, but there is no guarantee that such thing will not happen again. It means there is no review politics at all, it is just pure luck whether your manuscript is accepted or not. And I'm talking not about a new journal with no impact factor, it is one of the oldest, high-rank journal.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.














      • 2




        Kevin, this is not an answer to your question. You should either comment on the relevant answer or edit you question. As an "answer" this post doesn't make much sense.
        – Peter K.
        3 hours ago






      • 1




        Yes, I know, but I cannot comment since I have less than 50 reputation!
        – Kevin Hayes
        3 hours ago






      • 4




        Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
        – Anyon
        3 hours ago






      • 1




        This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
        – The Hiary
        16 mins ago










      • Please do not downvote this answer - if you did, remove it so the OP can get enough reputation, add a comment to the intended answer, and then this can be removed.
        – Leonardo Herrera
        2 mins ago











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "415"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122486%2fhow-to-force-a-journal-to-address-an-associate-editors-scientific-misconduct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6














      I am going to start in the middle of the story and work to the end and then jump back to the beginning.



      Some time ago you reported to the editorial board of a journal that you believed an associate editor had engaged in scientific misconduct. After 2 months you received notification that the EiC would be handling the situation. It has been an unknown amount of time since the report has been forwarded to the EiC. Charges of academic misconduct are serious and I would expect most journals to follow up on them. Two months seems a reasonable time for the editorial board to come to the conclusion that the EiC needs to get involved. From there, it would not surprise me if it took 6-12 months to resolve the issue.



      To the resolve the issue a number of things need to happen. The EiC probably needs to review the policies regarding charges of academic misconduct. They probably need to run the policies by the legal department to make sure everything is legit. Then they probably need to send all the manuscript correspondence to a trusted independent expert to review and provide insight. Then they need to pass everything by legal again. They are likely under no legal obligation to follow though at all and may not even tell you the outcome.



      You can continue to follow up with the EiC to let them know you have not dropped the issue. I would not follow up more frequently than every 3-6 months. How quickly things will get resolved depends to an extent on how seriously the EiC takes your claim. This brings us back to the first part of the story ...



      Scientific misconduct is a serious charge and something that ruins careers. If the AE plagiarized your manuscript, that would be academic misconduct. Writing an overly negative review to sabotage the publication of a paper is not nice, but probably does not constitute scientific or academic misconduct. Journals allow editors and reviewers with pretty extensive conflicts of interest to be involved in the publication process. Before pursuing this even further, you should get some colleagues who understand the work to give you some frank advice regarding any potential misconduct regarding the process.






      share|improve this answer


























        6














        I am going to start in the middle of the story and work to the end and then jump back to the beginning.



        Some time ago you reported to the editorial board of a journal that you believed an associate editor had engaged in scientific misconduct. After 2 months you received notification that the EiC would be handling the situation. It has been an unknown amount of time since the report has been forwarded to the EiC. Charges of academic misconduct are serious and I would expect most journals to follow up on them. Two months seems a reasonable time for the editorial board to come to the conclusion that the EiC needs to get involved. From there, it would not surprise me if it took 6-12 months to resolve the issue.



        To the resolve the issue a number of things need to happen. The EiC probably needs to review the policies regarding charges of academic misconduct. They probably need to run the policies by the legal department to make sure everything is legit. Then they probably need to send all the manuscript correspondence to a trusted independent expert to review and provide insight. Then they need to pass everything by legal again. They are likely under no legal obligation to follow though at all and may not even tell you the outcome.



        You can continue to follow up with the EiC to let them know you have not dropped the issue. I would not follow up more frequently than every 3-6 months. How quickly things will get resolved depends to an extent on how seriously the EiC takes your claim. This brings us back to the first part of the story ...



        Scientific misconduct is a serious charge and something that ruins careers. If the AE plagiarized your manuscript, that would be academic misconduct. Writing an overly negative review to sabotage the publication of a paper is not nice, but probably does not constitute scientific or academic misconduct. Journals allow editors and reviewers with pretty extensive conflicts of interest to be involved in the publication process. Before pursuing this even further, you should get some colleagues who understand the work to give you some frank advice regarding any potential misconduct regarding the process.






        share|improve this answer
























          6












          6








          6






          I am going to start in the middle of the story and work to the end and then jump back to the beginning.



          Some time ago you reported to the editorial board of a journal that you believed an associate editor had engaged in scientific misconduct. After 2 months you received notification that the EiC would be handling the situation. It has been an unknown amount of time since the report has been forwarded to the EiC. Charges of academic misconduct are serious and I would expect most journals to follow up on them. Two months seems a reasonable time for the editorial board to come to the conclusion that the EiC needs to get involved. From there, it would not surprise me if it took 6-12 months to resolve the issue.



          To the resolve the issue a number of things need to happen. The EiC probably needs to review the policies regarding charges of academic misconduct. They probably need to run the policies by the legal department to make sure everything is legit. Then they probably need to send all the manuscript correspondence to a trusted independent expert to review and provide insight. Then they need to pass everything by legal again. They are likely under no legal obligation to follow though at all and may not even tell you the outcome.



          You can continue to follow up with the EiC to let them know you have not dropped the issue. I would not follow up more frequently than every 3-6 months. How quickly things will get resolved depends to an extent on how seriously the EiC takes your claim. This brings us back to the first part of the story ...



          Scientific misconduct is a serious charge and something that ruins careers. If the AE plagiarized your manuscript, that would be academic misconduct. Writing an overly negative review to sabotage the publication of a paper is not nice, but probably does not constitute scientific or academic misconduct. Journals allow editors and reviewers with pretty extensive conflicts of interest to be involved in the publication process. Before pursuing this even further, you should get some colleagues who understand the work to give you some frank advice regarding any potential misconduct regarding the process.






          share|improve this answer












          I am going to start in the middle of the story and work to the end and then jump back to the beginning.



          Some time ago you reported to the editorial board of a journal that you believed an associate editor had engaged in scientific misconduct. After 2 months you received notification that the EiC would be handling the situation. It has been an unknown amount of time since the report has been forwarded to the EiC. Charges of academic misconduct are serious and I would expect most journals to follow up on them. Two months seems a reasonable time for the editorial board to come to the conclusion that the EiC needs to get involved. From there, it would not surprise me if it took 6-12 months to resolve the issue.



          To the resolve the issue a number of things need to happen. The EiC probably needs to review the policies regarding charges of academic misconduct. They probably need to run the policies by the legal department to make sure everything is legit. Then they probably need to send all the manuscript correspondence to a trusted independent expert to review and provide insight. Then they need to pass everything by legal again. They are likely under no legal obligation to follow though at all and may not even tell you the outcome.



          You can continue to follow up with the EiC to let them know you have not dropped the issue. I would not follow up more frequently than every 3-6 months. How quickly things will get resolved depends to an extent on how seriously the EiC takes your claim. This brings us back to the first part of the story ...



          Scientific misconduct is a serious charge and something that ruins careers. If the AE plagiarized your manuscript, that would be academic misconduct. Writing an overly negative review to sabotage the publication of a paper is not nice, but probably does not constitute scientific or academic misconduct. Journals allow editors and reviewers with pretty extensive conflicts of interest to be involved in the publication process. Before pursuing this even further, you should get some colleagues who understand the work to give you some frank advice regarding any potential misconduct regarding the process.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          StrongBad

          82.4k23207407




          82.4k23207407























              4














              This is a tough situation to be in. I’m so sorry!



              I’d say sending another polite but firm letter to the editors stating that you have facts to back you up. If still no response, get someone involved. Do you know anyone senior who’ll back you up? Do you have colleagues who will be able to reach out to such people? If the journal is affiliated with a society (like the ACM), you could possibly get them involved too.



              This is all predicated on your story being as you tell it, and that you have factual evidence to back you up. The truth is that it is often very difficult to prove such allegations and the reviewer/editor could just say that you misunderstood and the paper was rejected because of some other reason. I’d be mentally prepared to lose this battle if I were you, and if you don’t have strong factual backing then it may hurt you more than it does them.






              share|improve this answer


























                4














                This is a tough situation to be in. I’m so sorry!



                I’d say sending another polite but firm letter to the editors stating that you have facts to back you up. If still no response, get someone involved. Do you know anyone senior who’ll back you up? Do you have colleagues who will be able to reach out to such people? If the journal is affiliated with a society (like the ACM), you could possibly get them involved too.



                This is all predicated on your story being as you tell it, and that you have factual evidence to back you up. The truth is that it is often very difficult to prove such allegations and the reviewer/editor could just say that you misunderstood and the paper was rejected because of some other reason. I’d be mentally prepared to lose this battle if I were you, and if you don’t have strong factual backing then it may hurt you more than it does them.






                share|improve this answer
























                  4












                  4








                  4






                  This is a tough situation to be in. I’m so sorry!



                  I’d say sending another polite but firm letter to the editors stating that you have facts to back you up. If still no response, get someone involved. Do you know anyone senior who’ll back you up? Do you have colleagues who will be able to reach out to such people? If the journal is affiliated with a society (like the ACM), you could possibly get them involved too.



                  This is all predicated on your story being as you tell it, and that you have factual evidence to back you up. The truth is that it is often very difficult to prove such allegations and the reviewer/editor could just say that you misunderstood and the paper was rejected because of some other reason. I’d be mentally prepared to lose this battle if I were you, and if you don’t have strong factual backing then it may hurt you more than it does them.






                  share|improve this answer












                  This is a tough situation to be in. I’m so sorry!



                  I’d say sending another polite but firm letter to the editors stating that you have facts to back you up. If still no response, get someone involved. Do you know anyone senior who’ll back you up? Do you have colleagues who will be able to reach out to such people? If the journal is affiliated with a society (like the ACM), you could possibly get them involved too.



                  This is all predicated on your story being as you tell it, and that you have factual evidence to back you up. The truth is that it is often very difficult to prove such allegations and the reviewer/editor could just say that you misunderstood and the paper was rejected because of some other reason. I’d be mentally prepared to lose this battle if I were you, and if you don’t have strong factual backing then it may hurt you more than it does them.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  Spark

                  1,31910




                  1,31910























                      -1














                      Spark, thank you for your quick reply! I fully understand that it is a tough situation, so I do not mention the journal and the associate editor. It is really difficult to prove bad intentions of the referees if you don't know who they are. If you know their names, as it is the case when you appeal, you can easily check their works. In my case the situation is crystal-clear - the associate editor follows the line of research which he said is inefficient and that is why he rejected my manuscript. Moreover, his research (his papers appeared online the same month I submitted my manuscript!) was praised as a breakthrough result, but in his report he writes that this direction is inefficient and should not be followed. I don't see how one can say that it is a misunderstanding, especially if my conjecture concerning the referee identity is correct. If it is correct, that person also has recent publications which follow the direction called as "inefficient" by the associate editor. Of course, the editors of the journal know the names of the referees, and all these facts mean that they also participate in this lie.



                      I can survive without this publication, but there is no guarantee that such thing will not happen again. It means there is no review politics at all, it is just pure luck whether your manuscript is accepted or not. And I'm talking not about a new journal with no impact factor, it is one of the oldest, high-rank journal.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.














                      • 2




                        Kevin, this is not an answer to your question. You should either comment on the relevant answer or edit you question. As an "answer" this post doesn't make much sense.
                        – Peter K.
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        Yes, I know, but I cannot comment since I have less than 50 reputation!
                        – Kevin Hayes
                        3 hours ago






                      • 4




                        Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
                        – Anyon
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – The Hiary
                        16 mins ago










                      • Please do not downvote this answer - if you did, remove it so the OP can get enough reputation, add a comment to the intended answer, and then this can be removed.
                        – Leonardo Herrera
                        2 mins ago
















                      -1














                      Spark, thank you for your quick reply! I fully understand that it is a tough situation, so I do not mention the journal and the associate editor. It is really difficult to prove bad intentions of the referees if you don't know who they are. If you know their names, as it is the case when you appeal, you can easily check their works. In my case the situation is crystal-clear - the associate editor follows the line of research which he said is inefficient and that is why he rejected my manuscript. Moreover, his research (his papers appeared online the same month I submitted my manuscript!) was praised as a breakthrough result, but in his report he writes that this direction is inefficient and should not be followed. I don't see how one can say that it is a misunderstanding, especially if my conjecture concerning the referee identity is correct. If it is correct, that person also has recent publications which follow the direction called as "inefficient" by the associate editor. Of course, the editors of the journal know the names of the referees, and all these facts mean that they also participate in this lie.



                      I can survive without this publication, but there is no guarantee that such thing will not happen again. It means there is no review politics at all, it is just pure luck whether your manuscript is accepted or not. And I'm talking not about a new journal with no impact factor, it is one of the oldest, high-rank journal.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.














                      • 2




                        Kevin, this is not an answer to your question. You should either comment on the relevant answer or edit you question. As an "answer" this post doesn't make much sense.
                        – Peter K.
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        Yes, I know, but I cannot comment since I have less than 50 reputation!
                        – Kevin Hayes
                        3 hours ago






                      • 4




                        Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
                        – Anyon
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – The Hiary
                        16 mins ago










                      • Please do not downvote this answer - if you did, remove it so the OP can get enough reputation, add a comment to the intended answer, and then this can be removed.
                        – Leonardo Herrera
                        2 mins ago














                      -1












                      -1








                      -1






                      Spark, thank you for your quick reply! I fully understand that it is a tough situation, so I do not mention the journal and the associate editor. It is really difficult to prove bad intentions of the referees if you don't know who they are. If you know their names, as it is the case when you appeal, you can easily check their works. In my case the situation is crystal-clear - the associate editor follows the line of research which he said is inefficient and that is why he rejected my manuscript. Moreover, his research (his papers appeared online the same month I submitted my manuscript!) was praised as a breakthrough result, but in his report he writes that this direction is inefficient and should not be followed. I don't see how one can say that it is a misunderstanding, especially if my conjecture concerning the referee identity is correct. If it is correct, that person also has recent publications which follow the direction called as "inefficient" by the associate editor. Of course, the editors of the journal know the names of the referees, and all these facts mean that they also participate in this lie.



                      I can survive without this publication, but there is no guarantee that such thing will not happen again. It means there is no review politics at all, it is just pure luck whether your manuscript is accepted or not. And I'm talking not about a new journal with no impact factor, it is one of the oldest, high-rank journal.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      Spark, thank you for your quick reply! I fully understand that it is a tough situation, so I do not mention the journal and the associate editor. It is really difficult to prove bad intentions of the referees if you don't know who they are. If you know their names, as it is the case when you appeal, you can easily check their works. In my case the situation is crystal-clear - the associate editor follows the line of research which he said is inefficient and that is why he rejected my manuscript. Moreover, his research (his papers appeared online the same month I submitted my manuscript!) was praised as a breakthrough result, but in his report he writes that this direction is inefficient and should not be followed. I don't see how one can say that it is a misunderstanding, especially if my conjecture concerning the referee identity is correct. If it is correct, that person also has recent publications which follow the direction called as "inefficient" by the associate editor. Of course, the editors of the journal know the names of the referees, and all these facts mean that they also participate in this lie.



                      I can survive without this publication, but there is no guarantee that such thing will not happen again. It means there is no review politics at all, it is just pure luck whether your manuscript is accepted or not. And I'm talking not about a new journal with no impact factor, it is one of the oldest, high-rank journal.







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor




                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered 4 hours ago









                      Kevin Hayes

                      231




                      231




                      New contributor




                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.








                      • 2




                        Kevin, this is not an answer to your question. You should either comment on the relevant answer or edit you question. As an "answer" this post doesn't make much sense.
                        – Peter K.
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        Yes, I know, but I cannot comment since I have less than 50 reputation!
                        – Kevin Hayes
                        3 hours ago






                      • 4




                        Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
                        – Anyon
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – The Hiary
                        16 mins ago










                      • Please do not downvote this answer - if you did, remove it so the OP can get enough reputation, add a comment to the intended answer, and then this can be removed.
                        – Leonardo Herrera
                        2 mins ago














                      • 2




                        Kevin, this is not an answer to your question. You should either comment on the relevant answer or edit you question. As an "answer" this post doesn't make much sense.
                        – Peter K.
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        Yes, I know, but I cannot comment since I have less than 50 reputation!
                        – Kevin Hayes
                        3 hours ago






                      • 4




                        Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
                        – Anyon
                        3 hours ago






                      • 1




                        This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – The Hiary
                        16 mins ago










                      • Please do not downvote this answer - if you did, remove it so the OP can get enough reputation, add a comment to the intended answer, and then this can be removed.
                        – Leonardo Herrera
                        2 mins ago








                      2




                      2




                      Kevin, this is not an answer to your question. You should either comment on the relevant answer or edit you question. As an "answer" this post doesn't make much sense.
                      – Peter K.
                      3 hours ago




                      Kevin, this is not an answer to your question. You should either comment on the relevant answer or edit you question. As an "answer" this post doesn't make much sense.
                      – Peter K.
                      3 hours ago




                      1




                      1




                      Yes, I know, but I cannot comment since I have less than 50 reputation!
                      – Kevin Hayes
                      3 hours ago




                      Yes, I know, but I cannot comment since I have less than 50 reputation!
                      – Kevin Hayes
                      3 hours ago




                      4




                      4




                      Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
                      – Anyon
                      3 hours ago




                      Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
                      – Anyon
                      3 hours ago




                      1




                      1




                      This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                      – The Hiary
                      16 mins ago




                      This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                      – The Hiary
                      16 mins ago












                      Please do not downvote this answer - if you did, remove it so the OP can get enough reputation, add a comment to the intended answer, and then this can be removed.
                      – Leonardo Herrera
                      2 mins ago




                      Please do not downvote this answer - if you did, remove it so the OP can get enough reputation, add a comment to the intended answer, and then this can be removed.
                      – Leonardo Herrera
                      2 mins ago










                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Kevin Hayes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122486%2fhow-to-force-a-journal-to-address-an-associate-editors-scientific-misconduct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Eastern Orthodox Church

                      Zagreb

                      Understanding the information contained in the Deep Space Network XML data?