I prepared a 23-page article on parameterization. I submitted the article to a journal known as "good" in its field. After keeping my article for 4 months, the journal suggested a revision. Although the proposed revision appeared to be "major", it was actually a "minor" change due to the reviewers' lack of knowledge about the subject. The reviewers were asking for impossible changes about a subject they did not know (they asked why I didn't write my program in C++ which I wrote in Python, why I didn't use FTIR calculation in parameterization, etc.) and neither of them had any command of the subject of "parameterization". I made my explanations and 6 months later I got a rejection for a ridiculous reason that I "did not respond to the referee's questions" ( I responded with 17 pages and the email they sent after my responses had nothing to do with my responses; these two referees who wanted to present themselves as proficient in the subject ignored my responses like two fraudsters and played various word games: For example, they alleged that my program would not work without the Antechamber program used in the molecular dynamics procedure, and asked why I didn't publish it in the AMBER package, whereas that process was not related to my program, it was already part of the molecular dynamics procedure. They alleged that the VFFDT program would automatically number, I copied that part from the manual and wrote that it can't do it, if it can, show how it is done, they didn't respond to that either :) The other referee first said that the formula I took from the AMBER Manual was wrong, look, he said it was wrong, he didn't say the formula was incomplete or erroneous, he said it was wrong. In the reason for rejection, he found an excuse like "why did you write the formula in a way that will confuse the reader" since he understood that it was not wrong. You would appreciate that I had to hold myself not to swear.) ..and I got rejected. I was very surprised that a journal with such a good impact factor appointed two ignorant referees who really did not know the subject, did not understand the subject but insisted on pretending to understand the subject. The journal appears to be famous in its field and we corresponded occasionally with the editor-in-chief during the article process, actually the editor-in-chief is quite proficient in the subject and would never make the comments made by these two fake referees. Either due to bad luck or the incompetence of the field editor, I lost 6 months. Therefore, I want to learn the names of these two reviewers and write their names as "opposing referees" in my next articles. Do you think doing this would create an ethical problem? Since the incident happened to me, I could not make an unbiased decision. Therefore, I wanted it to be discussed here before sending the email: What would you do if you were I? Thank you.
Obviously, this journal practices "blind review". This means that they will not give any names of reviewers to authors. Indeed, it happens that anonymous reviewers misuse their position. But you yourself should also not misuse scientific publications as a pillory for colleagues.
Dear Wolfgang R. Dick thanks for your reply. In a published article, the reviewer feedback can be provided as peer review reports, but how can you do this for an article that is unfairly and abusively rejected? My idea is to publish the article on a site like arxiv along with these reviewer comments. Do you think this is an abuse? Also, please note that even here I have not mentioned the name of the journal. So, my intention is not to disgrace people, but what kind of deterrent do you suggest against misuse?
Hello Dr Barış Kurt
For the reasons mentioned by Dr Wolfgang R. Dick , it is not possible ususlly to find the identiti of the individuals involved - highly unlikely the journal/editor will help. My dugg would be to submit to another journal, preferably one that allows you the option to state reviewers you prefer.
Dear Joseph C Lee thank you for sharing your opinion. I have already submitted the aforementioned article to another journal. It seems that for the moment, the only way to express discontent with journals and their reviewers is to refrain from submitting articles to that particular journal and to avoid citing it as much as possible. However, it wouldn't be entirely accurate to call this a penalty; it's more like a 'personal boycott'. Also, the impact this will have on the journal is uncertain. Thank you again.
With regard to your boycott idea, Dr Barış Kurt , I would extend this to colleagues (such as others in my department). As you say, this is not a large penalty but this is a start to reducing your anger. You have more influence on your colleagues than you think!
As for submitting it elsewhere, I am glad you did this and I wish you a good outcome with that!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics