- Research manuscripts are handled on the basis of herd perception.
- The Editor-reviewer combine wheels herd perception into action the moment the submission is received.
- How can we leap-frog over herd perception?
- Does herd perception ensure obliteration of new avenues of thought?
- If so, whose loss is it anyway? Does the personality of the Editor herself /himself play a large role in this matter?
- Is acceptance for publication something of a chance roulette-play like fact-of-life?
- How can potential authors better understand the highly subjective process of manuscript review in the face of stiff competition?
- How can potential authors use caustic and insensitive comments of anonymous reviewers to their favour?
- Do medical journals/periodicals place a low premium on originality but a high exaggerated premium on simply knowing the ropes of publication?
- Does the finesse of language and complex statistics with at least 4 p values ensure publication?
- Or is it attractive diagrams and fancy algorithms or line-figures that reduce the speculative component of an article and give it greater legitimacy?
- Do Ethical Committees really care to exhaustively study the issues involved? Or do they simple form a bottleneck road-block for the ingenious and the ingenuous?
- Does a flash of genius frighten the Editor-reviewer combine? Does it irritate them? Do they, sometimes as competing scientists in direct violation of ethical propriety, deliberately fob off authors that do not toe their own line of thinking in a flagrant conflict of interest? Is this a form of inappropriate hostility? If so, are editors and reviewers accountable? Can they be held accountable? If so, in what manner and by what body or Organization?
- Has publication become a ritual with the prescribed format that is inviolable and easily overrules the content?
- Does getting a research grant involve lying? Who will fund a nascent idea that breaks fresh ground or challenges the status quo?
- Can the concept of venture funding or crowd sourcing be applied to help see a compelling idea to fruition?
- Will an author "collective" ever emerge to balance the present hopelessly skewed process of medical manuscript processing?
- Does the Ombudsman ever help?
- Is the pressure to publish scrapping the bottom of the barrel and putting bizarre contents before the Editor? Bizarre associations? Salami science?
- Is the RCT format a sure fire way of putting speculation into publication?
- Do ingenues fare better than artless males in the quest to become authors in a male-dominated field?
- Can we name at least ten female Editors?
- Are female Editors more sensitive and less abrasive? And what about female reviewers?
- Is race and Institution or origin of any consequence? Should it be?
- How can we control the disappointment and the anger of rejection of manuscripts that seems unjust to us?
Dear Vinod -
Ideally with equanimity
Then within that space, a new way forward can arise!
Dear Vinod:
You have outlined the dark side of peer review in a frank and thorough way.
If one believes that one's article is worthy of publication and it is rejected, perhaps it has been submitted to the wrong journal. The best course of action is to shrug and move on, trying again with another journal, choosing one that looks like a natural home for the article.
When asked to write a peer review, it is important to keep all this in mind, making an effort to be open-minded and generous. When possible, polite but firm suggestions should be made, with the goal of helping the author improve her/his text. Only when an article is clearly beyond the hope of rescue, or when the carelessness of the author makes salvation too complicated, should an article be rejected. At least this is my approach.
Warm regards,
David
Perfect answer. If you believe in the quality of your research article do not give up and submit it to a journal whose scope is more similar to the one of your paper.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Histology
- Sectioning