Why should an editor read your submission?

There is a worrying increase in poor editorial decision making, without any basis, because editors are not reading submissions.

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, the submission goes to either the editor-in-chief or a handling editor based on the key words or journal section implied during submission. In some journals (like PeerJ) the submissions are offered up to a whole group of editors who can take their pick. It seems that the next thing that happens is that the manuscript is sent out for peer review. But stop. That’s not correct and it’s really not a good way to proceed. Before sending it out, the designated handling editor needs to read the submission.

Why is reading so important?

The title and abstract really don’t allow a handling editor to decide whether or not a manuscript should go out to review. There are a lot of manuscripts out there that should not have been submitted, because their authors do not have sufficient judgement of their own or because they believe that there is a reason to just ‘chance it’. It is very important that handling editors read the submission, because without that they are moving editorial responsibility from themselves to the peer reviewers.

Some years ago, I co-authored a series of articles (see here) that were published across many journals about how peer review was becoming very difficult for editors because so few colleagues would accept to do reviews. This was a problem then, and it’s still a problem now. I’ve recently sent out manuscripts to more than 15 people before getting two reviews. That peers are not prepared to review, or in many cases even to respond to the request, is very poor. However, more recently I’m experiencing a sharp increase in manuscripts to review that should never have been sent out.

My time is precious, and it’s becoming quite expensive for my employers. I am happy to conduct peer review because it is an important part of the scientific publishing process, and I expect others to review my own work. However, I expect that any manuscript that I receive is worthy of my attention and time. If the handling editor has not read it, they cannot decide this and I really wonder what makes them think that they can send it to me (and presumably others) to read while they don’t feel that they have time to do it themselves. Moreover, this appears to be a trend among younger less experienced editors (often associates) that have either not received any guidance in what their job as editor it, or they should not be editors.

If you are going to be an editor, then you must be prepared to read

I must admit that I’ve done it. I’ve sent out manuscripts to be reviewed as I didn’t have the time to properly read the article, but a superficial skim suggested that it seemed fine. Not good. It’s embarrassing to handle manuscripts that should be rejected without peer review. In the case I’m thinking of, once I’d read through the manuscript later on that day, I realised how bad it was and immediately wrote to those I’d asked to do the reviews and asked them not to. The article was rejected. I only do this if there’s no science contained therein. It’s horrifying how often that’s the case, but I’d rather take on this burden as an editor than burden two or three times as many others to make the same call.

Sometimes, it’s not clear whether or not a manuscript will pass muster. Articles can stand or fall on good or bad single judgements of the authors. But misjudgements aren’t always obvious to editors. That’s why peer review is important, and that’s why it’s hugely important for editors to send manuscripts to appropriate reviewers that have some expertise in a subject. For example, if I receive a manuscript about the calls of East Asian frogs, I shouldn’t only send it to people who work on African frogs. It’s really important that someone familiar with the animals reads the manuscript. This is because they might know something that others would miss. If they spot an error in the identification of the species call in the manuscript, the entire premise of the science might fall apart.

As I’ve discussed before (see blog post here), science is built on the work that others have done before, but basing your work on what someone else has written will mean that you have a good understanding of what they have done and how they have done it. Assumptions have to be made to get anything done, and it’s a good exercise to sit down with a published paper (or even a manuscript or a colleague or your own) and read through listing all the assumptions that are made. Physicists might have a very long list if they read a biologists manuscript, but with some practice you learn to see the assumptions that the authors have made when designing their experiment, or going out to the field to conduct their study. An incorrect assumption could lead to the entire manuscript losing its value.

In my example above, the authors might assume that they had correctly identified the species when recording its call. Such assumptions should be backed up with museum and/or tissue bank accessions. But when they are not, the assumption that the authors are recording what they think they are, is vital. If this is placed in doubt, then the entire premise (description of a call to distinguish this species in the field) simply falls apart. In a case without vouchers, the assumption needs backing up by someone who knows the identification from another study, or without any foundation it becomes worthless.

I’ve been on the other end too

I’ve submitted manuscripts to journals where the editor clearly never read the manuscript. Editors who have made a decision without any guidance of their own gives this away. If your decision comes as a single sentence that asks you to revise according to the reviewers’ comments, then you can be reasonably sure that your editor hasn’t read the manuscript (and possibly not even the reviews).

It’s not surprising that the editors have little to nothing to say; without reading the manuscript, the reviewer comments aren’t really very helpful. Without reading, the editor has no idea whether the reviewer is biased or (as is sometimes the case) deluded. As an editor, you simply have to read. And if you don’t have time to read, you shouldn’t be an editor.

There is worse that goes on in economics

If the above makes some editors in Biological Sciences look bad, then I apologise. Being an editor for a journal is a pretty thankless task and there is no financial gain, and precious little career gain to do an editorial stint. However, if you're going to do it, then you must do it well. The half measures that I describe above are simply not good enough. But biological journals are a huge cut above those in economics. I've always had my doubts about economics as a subject. Rather like theology, it's based on a fanciful construct that puts its own practitioners in positions of power when we'd do just as well to flip a coin.

In May this year I was contacted by the "International Journal of Finance and Economics" and asked to review a paper on ETF performance (that's Exchange Traded Funds, but I only knew that now because I looked it up). I deleted the email as I do get a lot of spam from predatory publications, although these usually ask for papers and not reviews. Later in June, I got another email again asking for a review.

 

I noticed that the journal was published by Wiley, and so I looked them up. It turns out that the International Journal of Finance and Economics is a real academic journal. So why were they asking me for a review on ETF performance? I wrote back: 

Hello. Please tell me why you chose me as a reviewer.

Mrs. Terry Wirtel wrote back with all honesty:

 

Looking at the website, I note that Mrs. Wirtel is not an Associate Editor, nor an Advisory Editor. It turns out that Mrs. Wirtel is actually the editor’s administrator. I then wrote to the editors Mark P. Taylor (Washington University in St Louis), Michael P. Dooley (University of California at Santa Cruz) and Keith Cuthbertson (Cass Business School) and explained that they should be doing their own editorial work, otherwise their publication is bogus. Perhaps not surprisingly, they didn’t write back.

Although somewhat amusing, this exchange is also a serious worry. When editors, like Mark P. Taylor (Washington University in St Louis), don't do their own work, they leave the reputation of their journal in tatters, and it is reduced to the equivalence of junk status. Interestingly, Mark P. Taylor (Washington University in St Louis) is also the editor of two more economics journals. I'd be surprised if he ever reads the content of any of them.

Summing up

The way to get round making the kind of editorial blunders I describe above is to read the manuscript. The guidance of how to read a manuscript should be explained to editors when they take up the position. There is plenty of information out there on the internet, but the journal’seditorial policy should be understood by all of the editors (and preferably open to authors and reviewers too), and that should include reading manuscripts before sending them out for peer review.

Becoming Dr Mac

You may remember that back in March (see blog entry here), Mac submitted his PhD thesis to the examiners. Now with comments back from all three, it was time for him to publicly defend his thesis in the department of Botany & Zoology, Stellenbosch University.

Mac faced many questions at the end of his talk, but easily managed to respond to all of them. 

Mohlamatsane 'Mac' Mokhatla

It’s been a long journey since I started working with Mac during his MSc at University of Pretoria (with Chris Chimimba & Berndt van Rensburg), and since then he’s moved to Port Elizabeth (via Bloemfontein), Stellenbosch and is now based in Sedgefield. During this time, Mac has gone through some of the biggest challenges life has to offer including: relocating (at least 3 times), starting a job (at SANParks), having a child (Thateho), and getting married (to Boitumelo). He’s managed all of this and still maintained his passion and dedication for South African amphibians, their distribution and long-term conservation. Mac – I’m very grateful for your dedication, friendship and integrity as a scientist. It’s always a pleasure to work with you.

Mac started his PhD in April 2013 at Nelson Mandela University (then NMMU), and transferred to Stellenbosch University in 2014 when I moved to work with CIB. Much of the practical work that you’ll see him present was conducted at NMU, and then written up in Stellenbosch University. He started work with South African National Parks (SANParks) in February 2016 as Environmental Specialist Scientist based at Rondevlei, near Sedgefield. This speaks volumes about his long-term dedication to conservation in South Africa. Despite the demands of his full time position, Mac has managed to finish writing up his PhD, and he’ll now present his work which demonstrates well his continued passion and dedication for predicting long term effects of climate on African amphibians.

I need to mention the very important roles played by Dr Ben Smit (Rhodes University) and Dr Dennis Rödder (Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, ZFMK). Ben and Dennis guided Mac through his work on Phyiology and model making, respectively, in their own labs. Each deserves a lot of credit for bringing Mac to be Dr Mac.

His thesis is entitled: Evaluating the effects of changing global climate on amphibian functional groups of southern Africa: an ecophysiology modelling approach

 

Eventually, with all the corrections done, it was time for Mac and I to go celebrate together. Unfortunately, the rest of the lab were all away and so it was just the two of us to raise a glass each.

Congratulations Dr Mac!

A personal achievement: African clawed frogs on 5 continents

China - Africa Seminar on the Development and Education of Ecological Science

I was a great pleasure to attend the China-Africa seminar at Yunnan University, Kunming, China.

I met a great number of very interesting people from China and South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia. A really great meeting organised by Dr Yang Hui and her students. 

After the seminar, we spent a day climbing up to 4223 m asl, with the other delegates. It was a very long way to climb, but we made it!

From top left to bottom right: A temple in the park near Yunnan University, arriving at 4223 m asl, getting a lift up some of the way (there was a 2 hour hike afterwards), and lots of pics of people at the seminar.

A new model for publishing without publishers - the blockchain journal

The problem

There are growing problems with publishers. Publishing has become very expensive for scientists, and the public who fund science; unwittingly funding many publishers. I’ve discussed the history of scientific publishing before (here), and explained how commercial publishers have had a role right from the very beginning. This relationship continues to the present day, but while the origins saw learned societies commissioning publishers and then distributing their content, today the publishers have climbed into the driving seat conceiving and owning many of the current journal titles. This is not to say that there are no scholarly societies that still dictate terms to publishers (The British Ecological Society, BES, do this very well), but they are few and far between, and even when society journals are involved, the goliath publishing companies easily outweigh any control that they might have once possessed (and I’m speaking from personal experience – see here and here).

The result is that publishers have become gigantic corporations that now dictate to the scientists that produce, edit and review all of the content. They charge incredibly high fees to anyone who might want to read the publicly funded content. The budgets of university libraries run into USD 100 000s just to access content. The result is that many universities can’t afford all of the content that their researchers need. Publicly funded content, and by that I mean that you dear reader are paying for the original science of the content in your taxes (yes, you all pay taxes, even if it’s only VAT), and then you pay a second time for the researchers (who themselves produced the content) to access the content. Who benefits from the fact that you pay twice? The publishers. Why aren’t you upset about this? Probably because you are unaware. But if you are upset, then join in the discussion to decide how to emancipate ourselves from the publishers who are merrily munching on through this publicly funded cash cow.

What do publishers do?

The publishers would claim that they do an awful lot. All they really do it pay for the layout and printing of journals. These days ‘printing’ really means hosting electronic pdfs only, as there’s very little paper that’s printed, and you can be sure that paper subscribers now pay the extra cost of any additional fees. The layout from the manuscript (most often a MS Word doc) into a pdf does take some skill and talent, although nothing like what you might expect given how much the publishers charge. You can be sure that they don’t pay much for this service as almost all layout is done in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc. Quality can be good, but more often quality control is completely lacking. Most authors have stories of how manuscripts have come back mangled, although my own impression is that the worst days appear to be over.

What is publishing then?

Once publishers have ‘printed’ the manuscript, they ‘publish’ it by placing it behind a paywall on their website. I would be the first to admit that there are massive costs in doing this properly, and big journal companies have invested a lot to do this very well. The electronic hosting of journals is (in my opinion) truly excellent, except for that paywall. However, once they’ve set this system up, adding another 10 or 20 journals comes at practically no cost compared to the revenue that each one can be expected to gain.

To get behind that paywall, university libraries need to subscribe. Publishers bundle journals together and sell subscriptions at very high prices. If you are inside the university IP address, this access should be seamless. If you are outside, you might need to log in through your university’s library.

So far, the publisher hasn’t produced any content. The scientific content has been produced by the scientist at the cost of the public purse. The editing and peer review (see here) has all been done by the scientists, which has also cost the public purse but has been completely free to the publisher. OK, so there are some small costs associated with manuscript handling software subscriptions that the publishers normally pay. The publisher has also paid for the typesetting (although they’ve done this as cheaply as possible - see above), and they’ve paid for the severs that distribute the pdfs maintaining that all important paywall. What else? Nothing else. Now they simply charge everyone to look at the content (and because it’s by subscription), actually charge everyone whether or not they are looking at the content.

'Open access is one of the best scams that publishers have come up with' 

But don't take my word for it. Read this excellent 2017 article in the Guardian by Stephen Buranyi: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? In it, Buranyi makes the point that the profit margins of academic publishers are in excess of 40%. Something that even drug dealers, pimps and the mafia struggle to achieve. This situation seriously needs to change.

Open Access

Yes, there’s a new scam in town. Open access appeared to be a great initiative that acknowledged that everything should be free to view. Neither scientists nor the public that fund them should be barred from accessing the knowledge that they produce. What could be wrong with this?

So what is open access?

Open access is probably one of the best scams that the publishers have come up with to date. Now the scientists pay for making their own content open for anyone to read. They pay a once off fee to the publishers to typeset the manuscript and host it on their site without a paywall. And how much do the publishers want for this service. Prices start from USD 1000 and go up to around USD 10 000.

The money comes from the funds that would otherwise be reserved for conducting science. So now the money for research goes directly into the pockets of the publishers upfront. Money that ultimately comes from you as tax payers goes directly to publishers. Still happy?

So does that mean that these journals are now free?

No. Some articles in the journals are free, but the universities are expected to subscribe to those same journals at ever increasing prices because much of the rest of the content is still behind the paywall. This is becuase most authors cannot afford to pay the exhorbitant fees charged by the journals (although some countries now have this payment as mandatory, they and their scientists are still in a minority). There are some journals that are entirely open access. This is all well and good (see here for the PeerJ model). But paying for open access has not reduced the cost of access to scientific journals for libraries. This cost constantly goes up. Open access was a brilliant scam by the publishers, because for much of this content we pay not twice but thrice!

The blockchain journal - a solution?

So we need a new way, without publishers – what do I suggest?

First, we have to forget about the layout. There is a real cost to typesetting of scientific papers, and if we are to get rid of the publishers, then I think we need to start forgetting about the fancy layout to which we’ve become accustomed. This will mean putting some vanity on the back burner, or allowing individuals to make their own manuscripts attractive. It’s actually not that hard to do this with many of the LaTex tools freely available online (find out more here). It is even the sort of thing that we could pay our own graduate students to do.

Next, we need to work out the distribution issues. This is actually really simple. Our libraries already have everything that we need to distribute our manuscripts. They maintain and handle servers. They handle thousands of requests from users every day, distributing their own content (e.g. theses) to users all over the world. So our own university libraries could become our distributors.

I also suggest that to make the distribution truly international, in the same way that we’ve become used to journals being global, we can make use of blockchain technology to have all university libraries host all papers for a particular journal (I suggested this back in October 2017, and the idea has been growing on me). The buy-in could be at the level of the journal editor’s home institutions allowing for local, national and international titles as the editors are distributed. The reputation then sits back with the editors of the content and their institutions that employ them and host their content.

Lastly, we have to take back control. We need to start this new model moving. How to do this? I think it will take a society that is already in a commanding position to leave publishers and use the money that they’ve earned to setup the basis of the blockchain journal. It will take some initial investment, but organisations (like BES) have already made so much money from their deals with publishers that they can well afford to leave them behind.

Once the revolution has started. Watch the scientists leave the publishers behind. We really don’t need them. They have been taking your money for far too long. They have had their good times. Once we don’t depend on them, we may even be able to go back to using their services, but at a more reasonable rate that doesn’t cost us the price of our own research.