I publish here the original version of a manuscript and what came out after editor-enforced shortening.... Please have a look and discuss.. has this one gained, or lost, quality and general interest due to the intervention by the editor? In general terms: how far should referees and editors go in changing a submitted text?
Article Relevance Versus Reproducibility-Solving a Common Dilemma in...
Editors must not misrepresent the texts authors are responsible for. It might be a misconception of copyright and 'moral rights' (the latter is the author's right relating the text), both of which have different embodiments in different law systems (European and American in particular).
Anyway, the authors must have the right to withdraw their paper if they feel misrepresented by the publication under their names.
I am not an expert in the area of the manuscript to comment upon it. However, where to publish is a decision of author(s) and what is to be published is a decision of reviewer(s) and editor(s). Some common problems are
(i) Inspite the good reviews of the paper, editors decline/ reject paper.
(ii) If they accept for publication , they suggest to shorten the paper.
(iii) The reviewer(s) suggest to include their papers inthe references to enhance citations.
Dear Martin,
In changing a submitted text, referees and editors should go as far as knowledge can go!
And where, then, is the right of the author to decide what is finally published? The final paper still carries the name(s) of the author(s), NOT the name of a consortium that includes the referees and the editor! Thus, the author(s) is/are responsible for what is writtten in the paper, although the contet might have been affected seriously by others!
Editors must not misrepresent the texts authors are responsible for. It might be a misconception of copyright and 'moral rights' (the latter is the author's right relating the text), both of which have different embodiments in different law systems (European and American in particular).
Anyway, the authors must have the right to withdraw their paper if they feel misrepresented by the publication under their names.
A very sensitive issue, really.
I agree with RC Mittal (that, 'where to publish is a decision of author(s) and what is to be published is a decision of reviewer(s) and editor(s)'); but can not accept fully, that 'editors reject good papers', despite good review. Why should they do so (reject good papers)?
On 'editing & shortening' context, though the authors may not take it kindly, there may perhaps be some editorial (space) compulsions, for which (at times) the need for 'shortening/ editing an article' may arise. Standard journals go by the collective wisdom of 'editorial-board', who (are supposed to) work for 'quality publication'.
Yes, then the next point, 'how far'?
Yes, there should be a limit. If it is so required/ 'necessary' to shorten (by over 10/15%) significantly, then the authors must be consulted (for their consent).
If it is case of shortening by less than 10%, then....then should we not respect the 'collective wisdom' of the 'editorial board'?
In my opinion one of the advantages of the electronic era is the possibility to publish longer (more detailed) accounts of research. Few years ago (when I began to publish), papers must be almost telegraphic, given the costs of paper, printing and distribution; that in not the case any more. Thus, why shortening a paper that will -in most of the cases, be published electronically? If the style of the authors is non-redundant, there is no excuse for the editors to shorten a paper. Other great advantage is the possibility -in most of the journals, to publish on-line supplementary materials. This allows to make many research really reproducible... Thus, I think Martin has a very valid point.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts