Ужасы рецензирования

profnes — 25.01.2010 Когда статью в журнале отвергают сразу, это не самое плохое, что может случиться. Хуже, если это происходит после одного или более раундов рецензирования. Особенно обидно, когда статью отвергают на последующем круге, несмотря на то, что в предыдущем рецензенты были настроены благожелательно, а ты весьма постарался при доработке. У меня был всего один такой случай.

Встречаются совсем немыслимые ситуации. Вот одна из них, недавно промелькнувшая в EconJobRumors (пост я немного отредактировал): 
I submitted a paper to a journal. After 7 months I asked the editor what is going on. He said that they were still waiting for a second referee and that they would urge it. After other 2 months I asked him if they already heard from the second referee. He said they would send him a last reminder. A day after that I got the paper rejected based on 1 referee report. I asked the editor what about the second referee report as we were waiting for it for several months, and why we were waiting in the first place if the first report was negative. He replied that HE was actually the second referee and that he unfortunately agreed with the first referee to reject it.

А вот ещё несколько ужастиков с весьма полезного сайта Academic Journals Feedback Project.

It took 3 revisions and more than 4 years for the paper to be finally rejected.

Firstly, they gave me one referee report only and that was not very useful. Secondly, it took them about 40 months to decide to publish even though the first referee report was very positive.

After receiving an invitation from the editor to submit a specific conference paper for publication in the journal, I did not receive an acknowledgement that the paper had been received, even after 10 written reminders. The only correspondence received from the editor after an incredibly long delay was to direct my paper to a more applied and policy oriented readership. I did not hear from the editor again, even after numerous written requests regarding the status of my paper.

I made numerous email enquiries about my paper. No response for 2 years. I had visited the editorial office at university of Warwick IN PERSON, to find that they had sent me an acceptance letter that I never received.

It took 18 months, and over a dozen letters and email messages, to elicit a response from the Editor regarding my submission. Such unprofessional and discourteous behavior is difficult to comprehend. Needless to say, the referee's report was so general that it was probably written in less than ten minutes.

After 16 (!!) months with bad communication I finally asked the editor if there is a chance to get a report within the next weeks. After his negative answer I decided to withdraw the paper.

The Editor admitted after 6 reminder letters (and a frustrating 12 months) that the journal had “lost my submission”. After submitting the paper again, it took another 12 months to receive a solitary referee's report.

After 19 months, I received a half a page referee report of which more than half was a copy-paste from the paper's introduction as referee's summary. The remaining one sentence stated that the paper made no significant methodological contribution.

The paper was rejected on the basis of being too short. The editor claimed that they are seeking 30-35 page papers. My paper was 27 pages!

Two referee reports were received, one of which seemed to be on a paper I did not recognize as my own.

Ну как, кому-то ещё хочется ввязываться?

Оставить комментарий

Популярные посты: