I admit to being naive, but I always thought that the point of scientific peer review was transparency. As a matter of fact, that has always seemed to me to be a signficant part of the essence of science.
I recently had a manuscript rejected, which is not something new. But trying to resolve the issue, I rewrote it completely. Only for it to be rejected again. Further attempts to seek resolution stranded with the Chairman of the Editorial Board. Who wrote: "In science, it is an unwritten rule that when the editor rejects your manuscript, you don't submit a rewritten version".
The more insignificant part of this reply was that the editor never rejected the manuscript. She did not use one of the responses prescribed in the editorial guidelines, but simply said "i agree with the referees", who, however, did not have the same opiniion (reject & reject/rewrite).
The more baffling part of this reply to me was: the Chairman of an Editorial Board of a scientific magazine, citing unwritten rules as part of the publishing procedures? Does that make sense? Is that for real? (more comically: does anyone know where to find those unwritten rules? As in: are they written down somewhere?)
Is this normal? Do you have an idea how to deal with such a reply? (Complaining to the publisher does not lead to anything, as it was the publisher who sent the Chairman's reply to me).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes