This question is one which will be of interest to many people, and it is to do with the role of Comments papers either on ResearchGate or in journals. As we know, the former are not reviewed while the latter usually are.
In recent years Prof Pantokratoras has had a long track record of posting such Comments on RG and they frequently call into question the scaling analyses used in many papers. I agree with many of the ones that I have seen so far. Sometimes he points out correctly that the computational domains are insufficiently large. These are useful to note and hopefully future authors will, as a result, not fall into the same traps.
More recently there has been a focus on submitting such Comments papers to journals, the end aim being to have the offending paper retracted eventually from the journal in which it is published, or this is the impression that I have acquired. Being the fairly recently appointed Editor-in-Chief of Fluids (MDPI) this process of submission of Comments papers has come to the fore in my thinking and it is very important to work out how to deal fairly with them. This is especially so since there remains a sizeable chunk of researchers who have a blanket distrust of Open Access journals.
My belief now, having not really thought about it before, is that the posting of such Comments on RG (or as a submission to a journal) really ought to be preceded by the commenter contacting the authors first with their comments. This will allow the authors to consider what should be done. They then have the choice of publishing a corrigendum if the error can be fixed easily, or to retract the paper should the comments be fatal. I regard this as a kind and humane way of proceeding.
My first question is: Is this a reasonable way to proceed for an Editor-in-Chief for any journal? Or are there circumstances where it is unreasonable?
In the last week I have had reason to recommend Reject to such a Comment, urging the author to contact the authors in the way described above. In the attached document (RG-note-30-6-2023.pdf) I have included the last three emails between him and me to see how that went. So my second question is: Have I acted correctly in what I have said?
Finally, if anyone is concerned that I may be over-stepping the mark by posting this on RG, i.e. in a public forum, then please also consider that the background to the second question is that colleagues and senior members of my university received an email two days ago which was entitled: “Ethical issue for Dr. Andrew Rees” about my actions. I do not know how far the content might spread or if anyone was blind-c.c.-ed into that email. So I am doing this so that the research community, particularly other Editors-in-Chief and prospective commenters on published papers, may benefit. One might call this an Open Discussion.
I invite comments.
I have thoroughly reviewed the information you provided, and I would like to present my perspective as follows:
Question#1:
Thank you for highlighting an important point about the procedure of commenting on research publications. I appreciate your suggestion of contacting authors directly with comments before posting them on platforms like RG or submitting them to journals.
In general, it is an effective way to encourage open conversation and constructive discussion between authors and commenters. Before publicly criticizing authors' work, get in touch with them privately to give them a chance to fix any problems or inaccuracies you see. It enables writers to take into account the feedback and choose the best course of action, such as issuing a corrigendum to fix small errors or, in serious circumstances, thinking about a retraction.
However, it is essential to remember that each circumstance's dynamics may differ. In certain situations, direct contact may not be possible. For instance, if the authors are no longer working in the field or the commenter does not have easy access to the authors' contact details. Moreover, when there are substantial concerns about the research's integrity or validity, it may be necessary to include the editorial board or journal in the evaluation process to ensure objectivity. Also, the procedures for addressing comments, revisions, and retractions may vary from journal to journal and be governed by particular rules and standards.
In light of the above, I maintain the view that it is prudent and advisable for individuals to initiate contact with the author(s) before taking further action. This approach allows the author(s) a fair opportunity to examine and address the concerns raised.
Question#2:
Thank you for sharing your recent experience and the document (RG-note-30-6-2023.pdf) regarding your recommendation to deny a Comment and subsequent correspondence with the author.
Your email conversation shows that you have made an honest effort to foster constructive communication. You provided a clear rationale for your suggestion to decline the Comment, proposing that the commenter contact the authors of the critiqued work directly. Your approach indicates an intention to assist with a mature and respectful dialogue between the parties involved.
In light of the information provided, I believe you have acted responsibly and professionally in your interactions with the author.
Many thanks, Sadia, for your perspective, support and reassurance. I agree with your views.
Sometimes authors make themselves unavailable, though, and I guess that one may eventually have to proceed with the Comment.
Dear Andrew,
I am a sociologist of science, which makes me grateful for reading about an interesting case :). Your question touches a larger issue which we haven't even begun to discuss, namely the potential costs of open science for academics' reputation and careers. We constantly criticise each other's work but have a tradition of communicating the harshest criticism privately in peer reviews or personal correspondence. Communicating them openly makes our comments a potential resource for local decisions beyond our knowledge and control.
This is why I think any comments about potential errors in a publication should be sent to the authors first. Comments adressing more fundamental disagreements about theories, approaches and conclusions from data may be of interest to the whole community but should also be forwarded to the authors because they would likely want to publish a rejoinder. This kind of exchange about articles is quite common.
If I were an editor, I would not like to publish any commentary on an article without knowing what the authors think about it. So my answer to question 1: Yes.
Answer to question 2: Yes, I think your response meets general academic standards. Professor Pantokratoras comes across as very impatient. Reading his mails, I got the feeling that he is on a crusade and therefore cannot accept Merton's "organized scepticisim" on your part.
Dear Jochen,
Thank you for your support and for some interesting ideas that I hadn't thought about but which I will. I apologise for not having heard about Merton.
I believe that you are correct about the crusade idea, and I think that his approach doesn't really focus on the acquisition of correct scientific knowledge even though it might appear to be so superficially. Rather, it seems to me to be a form of corporal punishment which is meted out for errors. No kindness, no being part of a scientific community.
Now it is five days since my original post and, guess what, a paper of mine (with collaborators) was subjected to Comments paper itself two days ago and by Prof Pantokratoras. The two typos that we hadn't detected are the mathematical equivalent of writing "Coments paepr". It not surprising that I have to speculate about the timing of all of this!
Best wishes,
Andrew
Three days after posting this discussion, Physics-MDPI received a Comment paper by Prof Pantokratoras pointing out two very small typographical errors in one of my own papers, and I do wonder if the timing of this is significant? I think so, although I cannot prove so. The Comment also had an error in it, which shows how easy it is for such errors to creep in even in a short documnet.
I fully endorse the views expressed by Prof. Rees. In the event of any concerns regarding the published paper, it is advisable to first reach out to the corresponding author to seek further clarification before contacting the Chief Editor.
I would like to share one incident with Prof. Rees. I made a numerical error in one of my papers. Despite his expertise in the subject matter, Prof. Rees chose not to publish a paper or a note on the matter. Instead, he kindly sent me an email, pointing out the error and suggesting that I correct it myself. Additionally, he provided valuable tips on how to enhance the paper. I must say, after implementing all of his suggestions, the paper reached a whole new level.
In 2017, Professor Pantokratoras sent a comment to Professor Nield about one of my articles that I published in Transport in porous media in 2014. The error was very simple and it is in one of the non-dimensional parameters. It was a very simple typo. So Professor Nield rejected the comments and asked me to provide a correction for the non-dimensional parameter and this correction was published in the journal.
Dear Andrew, thank you for bringing to light this important point on Comments paper. Personally, I cannot see the point in criticising publicly and firmly the work of others. Everyone can make a mistake at some point, but that does not mean being a bad scientist. In my opinion, science is based on dialogues and a scientist can only improve by communicating with other scientists and by exchanging ideas and opinions. So, personally, I totally appreciate the way you have acted, encouraging communication between the parties involved and trying to open a constructive dialogue. I do believe this is a fair way to deal with errors in papers. So, please, keep acting this way by showing professionalism and diplomacy.
In another discussion*, I had a scientific debate over pseudoscience with a Mr. Marcel M. Lambrechts. Sometimes very boiling, it went on for several months and exchanges of several hundred replies and comments to each other quite publicly there. In the course of time several researchers shared their opinions. One of them a Mr. Phil Geis joined and asked me questions, some of his questions were due to lack of awareness of exchanges between Marcel and me. Therefore, the result was not so favorable. Should I add that the Noble Prize of economics in 1996 went for “theory of asymmetric information” that certainly has its value and implications for us in the world of science and research and also discussions.
In regard to the above paragraph and connecting it to this discussion several points are missing that make me be cautious and don’t judge directly about the content. Simply I don’t know the whole story and what had gone before between Dr. Rees and professor Pantokratoras.
For example:
1- I don’t know the names of those authors that prof Pantokratoras had commented on their papers, 2- pdf file attached to this discussion is a tailored one with possible typo (as you told you in the past) , 3-I see personal exchanges referring to past, 4- colleagues and senior members of my university received an email two days ago which was entitled: “Ethical issue for Dr. Andrew Rees” about my actions (sounds a possible revenge)
5- the content of the discussion and email (e.g.: "In recent years Prof Pantokratoras has had a long track record of posting such Comments on RG", and using sentences and phrases by prof Pantokratoras such as “I feel very well with my attitude”, or “Your decisions concerning my comments are absolutely unfair” also “I am convinced that you are looking for excuses to reject the comments and protect the wrong papers” and “The paper is trash written by authors who published until now FOUR wrong papers"
show that prof Pantokratoras is very open and in some cases really aggressive, so why he does not join this discussion to answer? look at this "I am decided to protect my work with publicity as you told you in the past. I will continue to send your decisions to scientific community".
6- "the end aim being to have the offending paper retracted eventually from the journal in which it is published, or this is the impression that I have acquired".
Examples by Dr. Rees are missing, if retracted, it is evidence but not impression. It is also in turn an offence to other journals, their peer review systems and peer reviewers. How could they retract papers just by sayings and writings of a person? did not they ask for evidence? How sending some points by for example a researcher in this case (Prof Pantokratoras) makes a journal to believe for a retraction? retraction is a two edged great defaming sword not only for the authors but also for the retracting journal, all of us know...
7- Is it "conflict of interests"?
These seven points and some others tell me that I don’t know the whole story and therefore far from judgment. But certainly I can share my understanding on the whole topic. As Dr Rees added "One might call this an Open Discussion."
In regard to the content of the attached file, my personal experience and understanding is that those exchanges are far from scientific norms for "formal correspondence". While Dr. Rees' syntax is more tolerable, I even go further that if these are the exact sentences by a university professor to a journal management, he needs to learn many more about the autonomous peer review systems in scientific journals, put away the peer review process itself!
Also Dr Rees has added: . “This is especially so since there remains a sizeable chunk of researchers who have a blanket distrust of Open Access journals.”
I personally can not find a link between this discussion and distrust of OAJ, Also I don’t see a link between comments papers and distrust of OAJ as a general topic. I have scientific and logical evidence that later I share about the sources of distrust of OAJ
FYI: We are in the age of several sentences of Twitter and several seconds reels of Instagram, therefore finish it here, the cooked part two and three are due to be shared here tomorrow and the day after.
* https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_extraterrestrial_aliens_really_exists
“This question is one which will be of interest to many people,…”
As a whole, Dr. Rees is right and of course there are many other issues regarding scientific publications, journals, their policy and specifically peer review. We don’t have room to talk about them all here I think, but about comments papers that is the question of this discussion, my attitude tells me, to work according to rules and if absent, according to norms. Although even in the world class best journals such as Nature we see unacceptable published items, but we should see what peer review says.
Peer review acts as an immune system for science, even what we are doing here is a kind of post publication peer review. But here is informal, but in formal channels, such as journals the case is certainly different.
That is we should not send comments on a published paper to its authors. Formal channels need to be and stay to be formal. If we act according to our power that we have been given and interpret every case the way that we want, in the course of time the law and rules will be what our thinking system dictates us and a part of which is certainly emotions. Emotion in research is not only unacceptable and rejected but also ban us from seeing the realities. Should I say if I wanted to comment emotionally to this discussion by Dr. Rees, the answer was different certainly, I myself know.
Look at these please
“My belief now, having not really thought about it before, is that the posting of such Comments on RG (or as a submission to a journal) really ought to be preceded by the commenter contacting the authors first with their comments.”
"In the last week I have had reason to recommend Reject to such a Comment, urging the author to contact the authors in the way described above."
"Finally, if anyone is concerned that I may be over-stepping the mark by posting this on RG, i.e. in a public forum, then please also consider that the background to the second question is that colleagues and senior members of my university received an email two days ago which was entitled: “Ethical issue for Dr. Andrew Rees” about my actions. I do not know how far the content might spread or if anyone was blind-c.c.-ed into that email."
We have important keywords here, such as “My belief”, “to recommend Reject”, “urging the author to contact the authors”, “senior members of my university received an email two days ago”
What I think could be done and was completely according to universal norms of peer review is that Dr. Rees could have sent the comments to other peer reviewers to judge about the fate of comments to a published Item. Look at this, it seems it talks with us "Sometimes he points out correctly that the computational domains are insufficiently large."
Peer review to comments to published papers is certainly different from the peer review to manuscripts. That is because they had been published. Any errors, simple or fatal (in your own word) refer to those who authored it and also those who did not detect them (peer reviewers of the manuscript). Why we keep them immune? Rules are rules. “I regard this as a kind and humane way of proceeding.” No Dr. Rees, it seems you unintendedly are doing things that are not good for the health of science, and in turn for the health of us all around the world.
The reality that we mostly don’t think about is in the world of science and academia is that each of us, every where are under unseen, hidden, sharp scan of science whistleblowers!
Look at this please:
Did you know that if you search Retraction Watch Database in Google one of those default "people also ask": is “How do I report a Retraction Watch?”
If we be over protective to others in the case of science, research and published articles that is injustice to all of us, we all must know that we are under permanent surveillance. It helps us certainly, I think. Also not bad to share some info that make us think deeply,
Retraction Watch (RW) Database In 2021 had 30000 and in 2022, it reached 35000. Now it contains 41000 retracted papers*. The site Launched 2010. Now please calculate, up to 2021, 30000 and from 2021 up to now some 11000 items added. It tells me we have to keep the immune system of science healthy. In formal situations like journals the authors and the manuscript peer reviewers should know what may be there behind their international or unintentional mistakes, small or big they should be kept accountable. Formal formal, informal informal.
All these were based on what I saw from this discussion. But over all I think Dr. Rees chose a very correct path to open this discussion. I appreciate this move by him. Not many are capable of.
The more we know and the more we share, the more we can learn and protect the world of science and research which is the most important thing we have, weren’t science and scientific research around us, where would have we been? I think something like "One Million Years B.C." Movie!
* https://retractionwatch.com/2023/
“Stop playing with my life” *
This is the useless outcry of a person accused of plagiarism. Who or what can help him? I think no one, nothing could be done. That is because science is independent. Some people give him up? Others will find him. That is one of the reasons that science and research whistleblowers could not be silenced. We can call them Army of One, Lone Wolf, or what so ever.
We don’t need that someone, a website, a webpage… known or… anonymous tells us they (the Predatory journals) are not healthy. We have great reasons to stay away from predatory journals.
Look at these examples from too many...
A researcher from US added this answer to a related discussion in May 30, 2023.
"I agree.
A lot of times, MDPI keeps sending requests to review manuscripts and expects comments to be received in 10 days. Most of the time they send me articles to review for which I am not qualified at all. On the other hand, I have seen colleagues who review these manuscripts just for the sake of adding it as a credential in their CVs. For foreign immigrants, if you review manuscripts, your permanent residency application for US is expedited. Hence, to achieve that goal, many reviewers use this as an opportunity to build up their CV.
MDPI is an easy target to be recruited as a Reviewer" **
Another example
A researcher from UK started a discussion June 14
“…As a non academic with no academic experience more than a graduate degree nor any academic connections it became apparent soon after publication that TSI journals are very much a pay to publish production” ***
Anonymous person example (while if any one eager can search MDPI in RG questions and see it)
According to MDPI he has a PhD and guest editor, according to his RG page and also the university that he is in, he is a PhD student. A PhD student and guest editor!
The other issue is the title of journals!
For example, Fluids OR life, OR food, OR healthcare OR biology, just to name some. Are we at a round about to go back to the days of Natural Philosophy? Why this discussion has been started in RG but not for example in Instagram? Is not choosing so broad titles for journals a tricky way, that everyone can think of submitting his/her manuscript to these borderless journals as their titles indicate?
Also look at this journal title Sustainability. From the beginning of 2023 it has published 13 issues with the unbelievable and unimaginable ten thousand published papers!
for example see this link to the July issue of the told journal with 895 published articles!
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13
Is it science? is it research?
Look at this and how dangerous it is.
In just July (first) issue of Foods, there are 204 published articles!
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/13
How can peer review work in these journals? ten thousand published papers in just several months, in just one journal? how many rejected? how to find peer reviewers for so many manuscripts?
also in this regard and In this discussion we read
Three days after posting this discussion, Physics-MDPI received a Comment paper by Prof Pantokratoras pointing out two very small typographical errors in one of my own papers, and I do wonder if the timing of this is significant?
The wonder of Dr. Rees is about timing, and my wonder is about peer review! Why Physics-MDPI inform others? Then what is peer review? Is not it a matter of kindness and emotion?
Who read lines added by me here? just several people that don't like these things?
Lets finish it by an idea introduced by the late professor Robert K. Merton
from his classic book "The sociology of science" the chapter 20 of the book is all about the Matthew effect in science. That, it may serve to heighten the visibility of contributions to science by scientists of acknowledged standing!
Now I think if the late professor was alive would coin another term. It might be some thing like "reverse Matthew effect". That I describe it as a way that the predatory journals find "scientists of acknowledged standing" offer them management positions, and promote the company, publisher or what so ever. Instead of they promote the scientists, the scientists promote them.
The cost? yes for all, including those engaged scientists themselves.
*https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/23/stop-playing-with-my-life-researcher-about-to-be-up-to-10-retractions-asks-sleuth/
**https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_we_should_not_publish_in_MDPI_special_issues
***https://www.researchgate.net/post/Journal_of_Physics_and_Astronomy_publications
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Thermal Engineering
- Thermofluid
- Fluid Mechanics