Imagine: an academic magazine states that it will review a submitted manuscript with one of the 4 following responses:
accepted
accepted after modification
rejected, but may be submitted after major review
definititvely rejected
What does it mean when the editor responds to your manuscript by stating that she "adopts the review of the reviewers", when those are "rejected" and "major revision / reject".
Also: is it normal for editors not to qualify manuscripts unambiguously?
There is not a universal answer for questions like this. Simply because the world of academia -that academic publishing is a part if it- works independently.
Although in theory and "on paper" there are several options! but a wise and well aware journal editor send that manuscript to a set of new peer reviewers.
On the one hand, I understand what you are saying.
On the other hand, after centuries of development, you would expect standards to have been set.
On the third hand, which I realize is slightly difficult, you would expect at the minimum a publisher to follow its own rules and to evaluate a manuscript with the labels it stated it would evaluate them.
Apparently a minimum of consistency is too much to ask?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes