Wow... You do have a tough case. The question is if you looked elsewhere for another job? or that is not an option for you? Your function on the current job satisfies your aims and objectives? even under suppression?

The usual solution under such a tremendous pressure is to resist at first, but I see that you were subject to more pain, then the next step is to move along to another job where you can operate away from this stressful situation. Maybe in a university.

You can make your question more general by replacing the word "political" by "parochial". There are narrow-minded cliques who cannot accept papers unless the researcher kowtows and first forces citations to all the "masters" into the Introduction section. E.g., "Bloom's taxonomy" "Vygotsky learning theory". To see some open-minded destinations, send this to Google Scholar: taxonomy e-learning theory -Vygotsky -Bloom

Ian

Agreed

I am not sure how the research community can regulate narrow-minded refereeing. Perhaps part of the answer is a move to open refereeing, i.e., publishing the referee's names, so that we can see that they come from a correct range of disciplines and schools of thought.

To what extent is open refereeing acceptable in the research and publications community? Will this bring out conflict or more acceptance?

Nice to have some responses.

By de-identifying the authors and the institutions, the peer process can put pressure on the so called narrow minded referees. Furthermore the concept of open referring is yet another tool to put them under pressure as mentioned by Ian Kennedy

I think that they could have their political opinions, belief or ideology as any citizen. However different political views or belonging of authors and reviewers shouldn’t interfere into scientific assessment which has its objective dogma following clear theoretical references and experimental protocols. May be an open reviewing process could be more suitable for that issue, unless subjectivity could happens into science

Thanks Fairouz for your input. My experience is that irrespective of the reviewing process, some referees are biased and they act as so.

You are welcome Hussin. May be some referees are biased, but the final decision belong to the editors/publishers. i think that an open referring could be better.

However, if that referee is influential, the editor/publisher will not interfere.

Thank you

I assume that if we accept Popper's falcificationism as an appropriate demarcation principle, and Kuhn's conjecture that all Science is normal until some rupture (or major falsification/refutation) occurs, then accepting the political nature of the scientific work may be inevitable. Although these authors did not present their postulates as having such a corolary, I think that they would probably agree that contemporary scientific institutions are founded on a compromise to agree to disagree. This compromise seems to be of political nature, and we probably tacitly accept it, even if at times we may be frustrated by a reviewer's or editor's decision.

I think that working in fields like health and the environment exhacerbates this vision of the political nature of scientific work, and, at the same time, may contribute to acquire a broader methodological attitude to deal with some problems. In such fields, it seems particularly critical to push our experimental and theoretical competences to their limits, and, at the same time, ask whether the political logic is imposing itself over the "strictly rational" logic over the scientific facts; at times, it seems that the appropriate competences are needed to sort this out, so a methodological issue may arise.

I appreciate your input. Have you experienced any such case? or are you acquainted with a similar case? Unfortunately I did experience such bias with no opportunity to discuss or deliberate the case since the main editor is an authority but at the same time openly known to belong to a major political group active worldwide.

Therefore, any research submitted goes through such a conflict of interest filter. Thanks God, there are always alternatives.

I have witnessed the workings of politics in the environmental field in several ways: during editorial processes, when an editor or reviewer rejected or accepted a submission in the basis of disagreeing or agreeing with the political implications of the paper, but, also, in the thorough political work that many editors try to do to consider the wide range of research tools, theoretical approaches, and political implications to address the Environment. Outside the strict journal review process - which is the main interest here - most scientific committees and boards present an extremely high political constituency, way of operating, etc. What seems to require appropriate methodological attention is that the environmental question itself may be both a technical and a polítical question.

Thanks for the additional examples. These add validity to our arguments.

Dear Hussin,

Could an influential referee influence labs' decision against a research project?

An influential referee who is arrogant and selfish and with a built in power circle around him/her will impede any efforts of research projects if felt that the potential outcome will not be credited to him/her but rather to some body new in the field but with creative ideas. Unfortunately, such people exist. It is more unfortunate if we cross road with them!

I experiment such case few years ago, and I didn’t made any connection with my career and my work too. Generally my papers were accepted after little revisions and have good audience. As a referee my comments are always welcome. Also I have several invitations from many editors and congresses organizers as well membership nomination from great scientific societies as ACS. But by a day and from this time, my papers were rejected without revisions, my participation to congresses was restricted ‘and many times rejected’ by my employer, my work was limited to nothing not even students supervision. And my career promotion was unfavorable out of any evaluation scheme for many years. In any case I didn’t have any political position that could disturb or irritate any part as I’m neutral; and my research do not meet environmental or economical political interests. If an influential referee has a great power ship on papers, research, career, institute and governmental agencies I’m very curious to know who is he/she and what is his/her needs from me!!!

Dear Fairouz, we are living in a world full with contradictions. Many talk democracy and act hypocracy. Your case indeed is tough, you may have been subject to more than one bias factor including your name, your judged nationality, your gender, and your competitive potential in your surrounding.

Somebody (!) blocking you in such a manner for sure is highly influential or simply using "the right words that bring fear" to block your progress.

As long as you are a professional person, with integrity and conscientious in your teaching and research, you do not have to fear anything because as I read you, you seem a strong person with perseverance and intention to give quality work.

Thank you @Hussin for supporting and encouraging me. Well your question is very relevant, few years ago I couldn’t understood it. My uncomprehending experience brings me to this question, how politics could interfere into science practice. May be somebody with very influential power ship could block me in my institute, and may be as journal‘s referee. But this person or may be ‘persons’ seems to have great influence too into governmental agencies, higher education ministry, presidency, public service administrative center, police, jurisdiction etc…. I’ve taken attach with all these services, and no results, or negative results on my career (I felt lose my job few months ago!!). For the question of fear, believe me that I live into fear since I was in disease not by infection or metabolic disorder but may be by any kind of toxin ‘may be any salt toxin!!!’… I’m custom to participate into international congresses and many of my peers in worldwide know me and have knowledge on my personality and my skills, so nobody could have fear about me if somebody has given any strange comment like this. Believe me I’m very disappointed by these circumstances.

Usually countries have national policies to support science and technology. This is planned for every year within a strategic outlook. Your possible problem could be a result of the fierce competition between national labs competing for funds. Therefore, lots of politics are used and if the competition is really aggressive, extreme harassment could be practiced. So, again, do things as the system requires, keep a paper trail of memos of communication, continue to be professional in what you do. Sooner or later, your work will pay off.

Regards

Thank you very much @Hussin for your great assistance and your thoughts ; The problem of competition for funding do not arise in my country, as funding are automatically allowed for governmental public agencies and research centers by annual financial budget. People are logically organized into groups of researchers under research projects approved by a scientific committee and the national research council. The research strategy generally meets the expertise thematic of the institute.

In fact the story began or may be evolved few years ago into international congresses organized in my country where a curious invited researcher from a foreign country asked me that I shouldn’t join again this congress, he was very impolite and the words he used were ‘je ne veux plus vous voir ici!!”. Unfortunately his sentence was repeated during the 3 versions of this congress and approved the 3rd time by an invited citizenship colleague of him ho seemed to be an influential scholar and a great professor. At that time I didn’t given any importance at such bizarre circumstances which appeared to me not logical as I do not meet this person before and I do not have had any kind of work with him, his lab or colleagues; But the sentence of this person was executed by my institute afterward : ‘no work, no congresses, no publications, no book, nothing… just stay in your desk and wait the end of working time’. Which is curious is that person or her chiefs are influencing people into my country’s running and political organizations – following my strange experience!!!-

Quote: when I say " or may be evolved", because many years ago during the 90ieth a computer lab that I have mounted and managed was officially splitting up and the research projects were damaged or may be transferred to a 3rd part . at that time i was young and i wasn't sufficiently skilled in influential strategies or politics; Now i ask the question at what limit politics could influence science??

Reviewers should remain objective when commenting on research proposals or papers submitted for publication. I think the onus should be on the journal editorial or grant reviewing panels to have clear and strict guidelines that values scientific or academic credibility and not on politics. Can objectivity be achieved? I think it comes down to integrity.

Back to you Fairouz, politics influence any field including science unfortunately. I am amazed why your institution took the foreigner advice! You said a great professor, great professors are fair, professional and with integrity and they do not act this way. So, I wonder what is great in that person.

Maybe after so many years of not reacting to the situation, you may not be able to influence the decision. However, if your research and activities record is clear and strong, you may propose a scientific conference yourself and justify it by bonding its theme to national needs. You may also contact the head of your institution and present your case. I do not know what steps you have taken presently.

Are you still under that embargo!

Regards

Thank you Hussin for your awareness; Yes i'm amazed and surprised too. If this person does not taken contact with me before with her curious injunction, I couldn’t make the relationships with my institution unclear decisions afterward. My participation to the third edition of this congress ‘workshop’ was not accepted the first time by my institute; I’ve had the authorization just few hours before its opening ‘after my strong questioning to the administration of my institute, I’ve asked them to give me an objective reason for their refuse, unless I’ll participate by my personal funds and they could give me authorization of absence (of course the problem was not about registration payment as it was minor). anyway into the congress place the 2nd or 3rd day an invited professor ‘that I don’t meet before’ and who seemed to be a respected one from the status and the attentiveness that he have from his peers in this workshop, has joined me and said to me that I should follow the recommendation of his citizenship curious researcher the words he used were ‘ il est preferable de suivre les conseils de ….’. Here I’ve understood the connection between my institution and these persons;

You said that ‘Maybe after so many years of not reacting to the situation, you may not be able to influence the decision.’ Believe me dear Hussin that my reactions were continuous at different periods I I’ve taken attach ‘by writing and moving’ to the headers of my institutions and the authorities several times, but unfortunately I couldn’t influence the decision as the curious persons seems to be very influential than me!!! I’ve proposed organizing topics into conferences following international invitation of peers, I’ve proposed research projects, I've proposed special edition after invitation by a publisher, I’ve proposed partnerships between other institutions, Etc....etc.. not any positive responses. But I was asked (or ordered) by my headers ‘de rester dans mon coin!’. Yes I’m still under a form of embargo but also under fear about my personal security as after I have taken attach with jurisdiction and police, I was subject of unknown reprisals that caused me diseases and weak health several times until i was obliged to stop my queries addressed to jurisdictions and police, which was in the same time a request from my institution for saving my job matched with a hard administrative sanction of 3rd degree to let me join again my post.

Wow... You do have a tough case. The question is if you looked elsewhere for another job? or that is not an option for you? Your function on the current job satisfies your aims and objectives? even under suppression?

The usual solution under such a tremendous pressure is to resist at first, but I see that you were subject to more pain, then the next step is to move along to another job where you can operate away from this stressful situation. Maybe in a university.

Dear Hussin, I’ve envisaged the question of moving to university few years ago from 2004. But my country’s regulation rules for human resources are very weak and contradictory as well as diplomas equivalences. University asks for new formula of doctorate diploma without any regards to further diplomas or research practice or the CV. So you must restart your career from the beginning as a new student and then re-follow the different steps; Even university do not accepted evaluation of my research and do not accepted the equivalence of my former education program as doctorate engineer ‘this diploma was removed uncomprehendingly from the nomenclature of official diplomas’; adding to the fact that teachers are very close functioning community, if you haven’t a friend or a parent in a faculty it will be very hard to be accepted. In contrary I was external associate teacher for many years as well as students adviser; like if university needs only our competences and do not needs us joining it. Well the problem seems to be (or is really) political one!!

Anyway, as administrative staff in the higher education and research ministry is same for may be over 20 years, if an influential person there is blocking me in my institute (or is doing business with my work for her personal benefit or with any foreign lab) she do continue tracking me and blocking me; it is my sentiment. This person (or persons) seems to be very influential into the political sphere too and sure has great power ships on different institutions following my strange experience!!! I really would like meet her (or them) just for asking her why she needs using stupid and primitive methods in a sphere belonging to skills as higher education. Really why the need to oppressive methods against me, as they could take anything of our works and do what they want with it, without any feeling form us, as no scientific or technical regulation rules are there!!! It is very amazing!!!

A Double Wow... for such a case.

Maybe being there for a long period of time taking the oppressive moves during that time created a real block. Therefore, my next question; Is staying where you are under the same conditions a source of stress or staying away created a comfort zone for you?

My next advise is to collaborate on independent research projects with researchers from abroad. Possibly if you do not ask for funds, from your own institution in this respect, will keep the pressure away! So, if you use your spare time doing that will keep you on track to keep updated in your own research expertise.

Yes staying away is better, but where?? if the oppressive block has great influence, and may be wants me to stay under the same conditions may be for controlling me or may be are sure that i couldn't have any opportunity elsewhere ' following a strong negative lobbying by any dual power ship level local and foreigner' !!!Believe me it is a great source of stress. But i don't know how to face it, only my hope that things could change by any changes into administrative or political issues, as during a long period before i wasn't so stressed and oppressed...

Yes the idea of doing research with peers from abroad is very good, but the question from administrative and running authorizations still be a key question, as any thing is centralized and tracked by headers, and as they have the power ship they could block or corrupt any attempt like this. The problem is not with funding as they are centralized and naturally are allowed for each research, but the reality is other.

I try to relate you the following story that you couldn't believe, as me too i don't understand it. Few mouths ago 'at the beginning of the year' I was revising a paper from IEEE. So may be any of my colleagues has seen the paper on my desk, has transferred the info (what info?? may be has understood that i'm preparing a paper or any interesting work??) to any header, that my desk was attacked by night and lot of my documentations has been taken or steal with a computer desk, a drawer and a wardrobe ????!!! It is very amazing believe me!!! and when i posed the problem to the administrative block, they don't responded and do not conducted any investigation.!!!!

I do not know, but did you have any personal problems with any of the administrators? So, he/she decided to make your life a living hell (so to speak!)?

Isn't there a reference person in the HR department to refer to? How about your academic advisor (possibly a senior person with influence)...

Dear Hussin,

Thank you very much for your queries and sympathy; unfortunately I have any personal problem with any of my colleagues, I was hoping this kind of condition, to have at least an objective response through a frank dialogue with the expected person. And sadly I have any scientific adviser able to investigate this. I was myself adviser for many years, there was a period when the director of the institute (who was a Professor) was himself the general scientific head adviser; things were better at his time. After his death, no real scientific adviser has succeeded him. And the people ‘all running staffs’ that I have met (in my institute and outside it) seemed as no concerned by the problematic. However there was (is) a person ‘the head of the scientific council of the institute’ who had several times very negative opinions and wanted many times to block me; but this person do not have any real power ship into the administrative staff, as she do not rule any department unless her scientific division. May be this person could have negative influence inside the institute, but outside it, I couldn’t imagine that she could also by herself influence the ministry, the national council and administrative directory, and all the institutions that I had reached!!! She must submit real objective and official arguments that she couldn’t have, as she bypassed several times the official running laws. These last years, things are ruled outside any logic and any law, advisors are mainly current PhD students from universities!!! How a student could investigate or have any power ship, as him/her self needs support!!!! Unfortunately things sought to be officially organized and managed by this way for unknown reasons ……………

Hi

As things look, you are in the middle of a corrupt system, with no alternatives but to keep surviving by doing what you have done and keep your job. And the only way out is to look for another job away from all this mess (if you desire so).

Hi Hussin,

in fact i'm in the middle of a big corruption, So after reaching all important institutions with negative outputs as results on my job and health, the only alternatives that faced me is to keep surviving scientifically and to keep my job for surviving economically...

Yes, i'm looking for another Job. unfortunately, i do not reached it yet..; sure things are related to the depressed economic system; hope that opportunities will be better sooner.

Any way this corrupt system is mixed by local and foreign benefits, and looks like a big political corruption. It looks like a big foreign lab or institution is behind this mess, unless the struggle in to my desk couldn't happen. May be people of different political orientation are struggling around my work for obtaining a final international sponsorship from this institution ??? still I do not understood what kind of interest could be joined with my work and politics!!!. For me it is a science fiction movie..;Believe me now i have so fear from any consequences of submitting any paper or conference..; so i"m waiting for better times...

Good Fairouz, may be a little waiting may change things. The Almighty's interference will happen on due time. Oppression never stays for long.

Hope so, Hussin. thank you for your thoughts

Positive thinking is a bless for our Almighty God, I think we have to use it as long as we face difficulties in our life and/or when facing gracious moments as well.

Going back to the main question: How can research communities regulate such behavior especially that reviewers are not public (anonymous) and there is always an argument to reject a work? I think the only way to influence such behavior is by getting involved with time as editors knowing the exact negativity of not being fair.

Very critical question these days. I will say that such behavior does exist.

I have just encountered one situation where peer reviewers of a book chapter criticized credit that was given to one prominent country's practice in Biomedical Engineering Education. I now have to solve this problem diplomatically in my response to the reviewers' comments.

Thank you Ziad for sharing and please keep us posted how did you deal with the case. Lessons learned will certainly improve our knowledge about such events. Being highly professional and relying on facts will assure your objective intervention to the problem in question.

From my experience, I think there are no bias with or against anybody due to political reasons. Peer Reviewers in Journal publications should be fair and objective.

Dear Dr. Judeh

By politicized it also could include other biases not mere political. For example, a group who does not desire new comers to the field of research or advisers to PhD students who submit something new and they have no stake in it, so they influence the editorial by being strong reference persons!

For this purpose blind peer-reviewing must be followed along with not getting the paper reviewed at least from researchers of the same country or related country groups, this would avoid biasness and also paper be reviewed by atleast 3 reviewers and based on merits decision be taken by EIC. Many other flaws are there that reviewers pass rejection decision in few instances just based on their personal perception about researcher / group overruling the merits of a paper.      

Thank you Kuldeep and Ruchi for your inputs. Judgmental biases should not be tolerated however if a review is based on simple clear and objective points, then it is welcomed. Unfortunately, reviewers' biases exist.

When reviewers deal with the presented work with respect and offering improvement , then even the review is demanding, it is a fair call.

I agree with your last statement Dr Hejase. The review process has its ethics and I think the majority of reviewers are not biased.

Maybe this applies [non biased] to blind reviews, how about the new trend of open reviews!