Repositorio Institucional
Repositorio Institucional
CONICET Digital
  • Inicio
  • EXPLORAR
    • AUTORES
    • DISCIPLINAS
    • COMUNIDADES
  • Estadísticas
  • Novedades
    • Noticias
    • Boletines
  • Ayuda
    • General
    • Datos de investigación
  • Acerca de
    • CONICET Digital
    • Equipo
    • Red Federal
  • Contacto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
  • INFORMACIÓN GENERAL
  • RESUMEN
  • ESTADISTICAS
 
Artículo

Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections

Farji Brener, Alejandro GustavoIcon ; Kitzberger, ThomasIcon
Fecha de publicación: 2015
Editorial: Queen's University
Revista: Ideas In Ecology and Evolution
ISSN: 1918-3178
Idioma: Inglés
Tipo de recurso: Artículo publicado
Clasificación temática:
Otros Tópicos Biológicos

Resumen

In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally accepted in journals of similar ranking to which they were originally submitted. We thus concluded that editors appear to be “poor oracles” with regards to being able evaluate the quality of a manuscript without the help of external reviewers. This article was recently criticized by the team of editors of the Ecological Society of America. In this work, we clarify some misunderstandings and offer new evidence supporting our view that external reviews should be the rule in the process of publishing scientific literature. Specifically, here we argue that (a) the claim that editorial rejections are based on manuscripts not adjusting to the journal’s scope rather than on academic quality is unconvincing; (b) if academic quality is being assessed to decide the fate of a submitted paper, this attribute must be evaluated including several external opinions and not only the superficial reading of one person, (c) our survey design was appropriate and, despite the small sample size, the conclusion that editors are poor oracles seems to be fairly reliable and, (d) the practice of sending the majority of submitted papers to external review should not cause the collapse of most popular journals. We insist that for the sake of science, editors need the opinion of external experts and should not act as oracles.
Palabras clave: Academic Quality , Peer Review Proccess , Editorial Rejections
Ver el registro completo
 
Archivos asociados
Thumbnail
 
Tamaño: 263.7Kb
Formato: PDF
.
Descargar
Licencia
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Excepto donde se diga explícitamente, este item se publica bajo la siguiente descripción: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
Identificadores
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11336/12126
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4033/iee.2015.8.1.f
URL: http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/IEE/article/view/5514
Colecciones
Articulos(INIBIOMA)
Articulos de INST. DE INVEST.EN BIODIVERSIDAD Y MEDIOAMBIENTE
Citación
Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections; Queen's University; Ideas In Ecology and Evolution; 8; 1; -1-2015; 1-6
Compartir
Altmétricas
 

Enviar por e-mail
Separar cada destinatario (hasta 5) con punto y coma.
  • Facebook
  • X Conicet Digital
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Sound Cloud
  • LinkedIn

Los contenidos del CONICET están licenciados bajo Creative Commons Reconocimiento 2.5 Argentina License

https://www.conicet.gov.ar/ - CONICET

Inicio

Explorar

  • Autores
  • Disciplinas
  • Comunidades

Estadísticas

Novedades

  • Noticias
  • Boletines

Ayuda

Acerca de

  • CONICET Digital
  • Equipo
  • Red Federal

Contacto

Godoy Cruz 2290 (C1425FQB) CABA – República Argentina – Tel: +5411 4899-5400 repositorio@conicet.gov.ar
TÉRMINOS Y CONDICIONES