Ykhjuy

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?

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.

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.

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.