Dear Asim, many thanks for your input and ideas. It is good to hold a frank and open discussion and we have been given an excellent opportunity and platform to do this here at ResearchGate. However, I am trying to maintain a respectful and serious tone, as much as possible, in order to stimulate further fruitful discussion. I therefore cannot agree with your choice of language at the end of your message because it does not elevate the conversation and because it adds nothing new or of positive value. However, I do respect your freedom to express whatever and however you want, so I am not going to request you to either delete or edit your comment. But I think it is important to make this point clear so that any other scientists planning to add comments to this discussion understand that we need self-moderation here before posting. Once again, Asim, for sharing your thoughts and opinion.

Jaime,

Here is Springer's answer to your question :

" Banning is not a policy endorsed by COPE. COPE advises that the matter of punishment should reside with the author’s institute. Publishers are expected to correct the literature. It is however Springer’s view that in exceptional cases (e.g. in cases of repeat offenders or authors using abusive language) the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board has the right to refuse to review/accept papers from these authors."

In other words ( IMHO) only an editor - not a publisher - and in exceptional cases and after exhausting all available less severe remedies has the right to ban a scientist.

The right to ban a scientist should be limited to cases of misconduct, an editor does not have the right to ban a critic scientist, or a scientist who complains of flawed peer review, nor does s/he have the right to ban a scientist requesting waiver for APC .  

Klaas, thank you for your detailed comment and insight. I should add that I am retired and with no insitutional affiliation, therefore I work as an independent, at least during the time of the two bans. I am looking forward to a greater discussion and input by other scientists.

Klaas, this critique of the COPE clause 3.1 may interest you and others:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280527947_COPE_code_of_conduct_clause_3.1._under_the_microscope_a_prelude_to_unfair_rejections

Article COPE code of conduct clause 3.1 under the microscope: A prel...

I quite hold Francis &Tailor and Elsevier in high esteem having published in some journals handled by both publishers. I am equally of the view that manuscripts undergo rigorous review process before they are accepted and finally published. However, where an author is dissatisfied with a particular review exercise, the onus lies on the Editor-in-Chief to provide concrete evidence to the contrary. Where certain flaws are detected in the administration of a journal, It think it is not unethical to bring that to the notice of the journal. Constructive criticism should be seen as a welcome idea as it may provide virile opportunity for one to shape up. However, where criticism deliberately and perpetually aims at  dragging someone's or an organisation's name in the mud, then it calls for caution. I think the word 'ban' should not be hastily applied when one is trying to right a wrong.

A new discussion thread has been started (by an anonymous researcher) at PubPeer:

https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/B7B91E545EA48752E58212BAB14DEF

It is not fair to ban a scientist from publishing hi/her research work by the editor/ publishers. The merit of the paper is to be decided by the editor/ publisher.

Dr. Nath, thank you for your input and opinion. The term you may be referring to is "editorial independence" in which the editors have the right to decide the acceptance or rejection of a paper based exclusively on the academic and scientific merit (or flaws) of the manuscript, independent of the relationship between an editor board (e.g., an academic society that owns the journal) and the publisher. Are you suggesting that even if a publisher bans a scientist (for whatever reason), that an editor board can still accept his/her work if the study is properly vetted and peer reviewed?

I just fail to understand why publisher should ban scientist.

This is one way traffic as Journal have only this type of authority to ban scientist, in case of journal or publisher were doing favorite by selecting papers for their near friends only. shit

Dear Asim, many thanks for your input and ideas. It is good to hold a frank and open discussion and we have been given an excellent opportunity and platform to do this here at ResearchGate. However, I am trying to maintain a respectful and serious tone, as much as possible, in order to stimulate further fruitful discussion. I therefore cannot agree with your choice of language at the end of your message because it does not elevate the conversation and because it adds nothing new or of positive value. However, I do respect your freedom to express whatever and however you want, so I am not going to request you to either delete or edit your comment. But I think it is important to make this point clear so that any other scientists planning to add comments to this discussion understand that we need self-moderation here before posting. Once again, Asim, for sharing your thoughts and opinion.

I totally agree with Klaas about the opportunity to ask for a formal statement of these bans. It seems intolerable that a single case may be extended to all future manuscripts.

Antonella, thank you for responding. Indeed, there are three distinct issues here: a) the formal statements regarding the bans; b) the extension to all future manuscripts; c) the extension to all my collaborators and co-authors. Let me deal with each in a bit more detail next:

a) Regarding the Elsevier ban, I discovered inconsistencies in the ethical definitions of authorship employed by Elsevier, and claimed that it could invalidate all contracts between authors and the publisher. Fearing the truth of my discovery, I thus see the Elsevier ban as an act of political and non-academic revenge. Specifically, after discovering many errors with the editor board of Scientia Horticulturae, with problems in papers published in that journal which, I should add, remain uncorrected, years after formal complaints, and after exposing a clear case of ad hoc editorial victimization and cronyism among the horticultural elite, also involving the International Society for Horticultural Science and Acta Horticulturae, I informed the editor board that I would contact the formal authorities related specifically to two editors-in-chief, Samir C. Debnath and Dietmar Schwarz*, who instigated a veritable behind-my-back witch-hunt of me and my co-authors. The ban was then issued and labelled as "threats", simply to stoke fear. Jilles Jonkers, the original Elsevier management figure who instigated an investigation and who formally destroyed my career opportunities at Kagawa University, even though no ethical breach was found after a long and stressful investigation headed by the dean of the Faculty of Agriculture of Kagawa University, in essence colluded with the Scientia Horticulturae editor board formalizing the ban and making an example of me. I also believe that there was serious professional jealousy involved.

I called for, in early 2015, a reversal of the Elsevier ban and a call for a peaceful resolution. Dr. Schwarz indicated that the editor board was willing to accept my papers to Scientia Horticulturae, but that Elsevier management would not allow it. In other words, Scientia Horticulturae was basically stripped of its editorial independence and became a puppet journal and editor board.

* https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dietmar_Schwarz

Regarding the Taylor & Francis / Informa ban, well you can see the dozen or so cases/queries outlined in detail at Retraction Watch. And you will clearly see that absolutely no explanation has been provided by the management of that publisher about the precise reasons for the ban. More importantly, there do not exist any guidelines or rules on any Taylor & Francis / Informa web-page that specify the rules of engagement, the limits to conflicts, or the precise reasons leading to a ban of an author or editor. Even Natalie Ridgeway or COPE has publicly urged Taylor & Francis / Informa to make this information available, and clear. To date, 2 months after the ban was instilled, not a single response has been received from Taylor & Francis / Informa management.

b) Extending a ban to all future manuscripts in all Taylor & Francis / Informa journals simply indicates how this publisher has killed the concept of editorial independence, i.e., the ability for an editor board to decide on the merit of a scientific paper based exclusively on the scientific content and merit, and not on any politically motivated charge. My bans constitute, as I see it, a historical first. And that is why the scientific community needs to pay close attention because these bans reflect the infringement on our rights and on our freedoms as well as on editorial independence.

c) I can understand banning me to inflict their revenge and anger on a single scientist. But to then aggressively extend the ban to all of my associates, collaborators and co-authors is a pure act of revenge and aggression. Innocent professionals have been and continue to be victimized. The worst part is that Elsevier and Taylor & Francis / Informa simply don't even care.

At the end of the day, my critics and these publishers will argue that these are their journals and that they can do anything they want. But can they, based on non-existent rules and unspecified guidelines? Are they and their editors not to be held accountable in the public arena? Are justice and transparency things that are imposed upon authors in a one-way focus and aspects that we, the authorship, cannot demand of editors and publishers? These same protagonists will focus on tone and political correctness as a deflection to real criticisms of their publishing model, flaws in their editorial processes and errors in their published literature. I understand that the average scientist most likely does not complain (too much), or like to share divergences with an editor’s or publisher's thinking, at least not in public. Because they understand the risks to their names, professions, careers and research grants. So they prefer to stay/hide in silence under the dome of fear instilled upon scientists in this mostly biased, imperfect and repressive publishing model.

Dear Jaime

As I know it is not easy to make eveything in the right line involving in scientific publication internationally. There are so many journals and publishers that do not run publication process profesionally, transparantly and accountably. Banning scientists in these journals and publishers occurre due to criticisms on bad editorial policies, flawed editorial work, unprofessional handling of published papers and several other publishing-related issues. When all the critics and more questions to unprofessional works come to journal editors and publishers and make them angry, then banning scientists especially to the journal writers will take place. 

I know it is not fair to the journal writers, but it is normally will occurr to everyone who do it. In my opinion, nobody perfect, even he/she tries to do it, therefore it shall be useful, when anyone give advise, suggestion or critic to perfect averyone else.

Jaime this is my opinion to answer your question

Regards

Budi

Hello Budi, thank you for sharing your thoughts with the public. I think that the majority of scientists will not openly criticize editors, journals or pblishers, because they understand the risks involved. So they swallow and control their anger, their criticisms and their public opinions. In some cases, they spend their entire careers in silence, to safeguard their positions, salaries and grants. One of my previous mentors, despite agreeing with my positions, feared for his/her career prospects, and preferred to "retire in peace". So, there is this combination of factors in the current research and publishing systems that does not allow for a free flow of ideas and criticisms. And although I respect each one's personal (selfish?) rights not to express their concerns, look where we are today: with a corrupted literature caused by an equally corrupted editorial system that has allowed through ample errors (not out of malice, but out of weakness). Of course, these risks are much higher in lower level journals (let's roughly equate the IF score with rigor), the worst situation being in select "predatory" open access journals. I have no doubt that publishers are, in general, doing their best to represent science faithfully and professionally, including the publishers that banned me, and that editors (broadly) are doing their best to screen the quality of the submitted literature. I am also of the belief that the great majority of scientists are honest (ar at least that's what I want to believe and what a system based on blind trust until now made us believe). But the self-protectionist action by publishers that impose bans on scientists with valid criticisms is not doing science any favors by silencing the voice of a critic. There is still so much that needs to be discussed. And yes, as you predict, I suspect that there may be others who are banned, or who will be banned (and I don't mean for lack of ethics, I mean for being critical of the establishment and status quo).

Science is not aways that ethical and correct as it should be, as reviewers are not always independent and free of prejudice: there are sometimes rivalries or competitions, or reviewers spend not too much time voluntarily(!!) to read and judge a manuscript. Criticism is therefore justifiable. But on the other side, also a Publisher has the right to accept or to reject a paper for what reason ever. We are in an old dilemma:

Science needs to publish and usually this is done voluntarily free of charge; journals and publishers live from submitted manuscripts and publications and they try to evaluate the submissions (by voluntary reviewers). If the Quality Standard is not high enough - who wll buy the Journal? If the costs are too high - who will pay for the publication (and which paid publication will fulfill the Quality requirements)? And so on ...

Therefore: there exist so many Journals, also Open Access, and a change to another Publisher should not be the Problem - although some justified criticism on the existing system remains (e.g. who is able and willing to publish that high number of of papers sbmitted, who is willing to evaluate all these manuscripts voluntarily, who can pay the costs of publishing, who can buy all that scientific literature... a.s.o.).

Dr. Franz, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Science publishing is in a state of evolution. I dare say that it is more. It is in a state of revolution. Your argument is true, but that does not mean that we should be lax. Quite the opposite, we are talking about two of the most prolific and profitable publishers on this planet: Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P (2015) The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

So, while these publishers do contribute to science's integrity in the sense that safe and reliable platforms are provided to safe-guard and disseminate our work, such a function is increasingly becoming less and less necessary. We entrust these for-profit publishers with our intellect that we sign over with our copyright. There is no doubt that their objectives are not that noble as they may have been 50 or 100 years ago. They have share-holders, stake-holders, CEOs, lawyers and alot of staff to satisfy... financially. If there is no profitability, if the curve does not swing upwards, if the impact factors do not rise, then the publishers are doomed. It all revolves around a perfectly staged play. And we are the ones doing the pirouettes.

Yet, they reap their profits from the free will and efforts of specialists around the world. In no profession would someone offer their professional services for free, except for editors of for-profit publishers and in science publishing. Why are there no royalties to authors? Why are editors not paid? Who gains from these multi-billion dollar annual profits? It's certainly not you or me, even though I, like others, have contributed dozens of papers to the Elsevier and Taylor and Francis data-bases which they then profit from. And what do we gain?

So, if they are going to be making such massive profits, isn't it fair to say that we should be holding them to the highest standards? When a journal claims peer review, but then accepts a manuscript automatically, without peer review, is that correct, or honest? Should we not protest loudly? If there are errors in the literature, but editors and publishers turn their cheeks the other, way, what defense is there for this attitude and action? Why do Taylor and Francis and Elsevier sit in the shadows in silence?

Why does COPE look the other way while outstretching its hand to receive handsome "membership" fees?

http://publicationethics.org/files/Subscription%20rates%202015.pdf

If there is no profit to be gained, would these publishers still be in the business of publishing? Probably not. So, please do not look at science publishing naively, because even though your argument is indeed an age-old argument, how pertinent and relevant is it nowadays?

The equation, Dr. Franz, as I see it, is quite simple. If a publisher makes profit off scientists' intellect, if its journals gain from the impact factor or any other metrics, then we must hold them accountable for their publishing operations. All aspects of it, including peer review, the published literature, the editors that run the journals, and the management that runs the company.

The dead silence you are witnessing is nothing but a one-way street in accountability: all accountability is expected of us, the scientists, and a much more limited amount from the editors and from the publishers. The equation is highly skewed, justice is no longer just, and the publishers implemented this ban to ensure that the equation of accountability, honesty and justice remains imbalanced. If you silence the voices of criticism and discontent, you retain tyrannical power.

Ultimately, by silencing the critics, these two publishers ensure a self-preserved lack of accountability and limited transparency.

Ask yourself, Dr. Franz, what is their end-game? Where do they want to go, and what do they want to achieve, now that they lead the pack globally? More money, more profits, more power, a greater web, more control, while instilling more fear, more control and banning those who are critical.

On December 2, 2015, Dr. T. Michael A. Wilson, current Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, a leading and elite horticultural journal, forcefully withdrew a review paper with 5 co-authors, from peer review. The paper had been in review since August 15, 2015. Taylor and Francis had implemented the ban on September 26, 2015, as stated clearly by Anthony F. Trioli: “Therefore with regret we must advise you that no new submissions by you, either as a Corresponding or Co-Author, will be considered by any Taylor & Francis journal.”

My co-authors and I have thus been the direct victims of an unprofessional attack, an unconstitutional ban created from non-existent clauses or guadelines, and direct victimization by a senior member and team of the horticultural peer community, the JHSH editor board. This shows the extreme dangers that exist in the corporate dominance of academic societies and privately run journals who enter into contract with powerful for-profit publishers. In essence, they lose their editorial independence, as has been clearly proved now with JHSB.

Any plant scientist, and more specifically horticultural scientist, out there reading this story, had better take note of how the system works, because we are nothing to these publishers and companies, just dispensable commodities. We sign over copyright and ensure their profits and, if we complain about valid issues of concern, we are banned.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind now what these bans represent: a direct attack on our freedoms of speech, on our rights to protest what is wrong, and a fear-mongering strategy to make sure that all scientists behave in a controlled and standardized way to ensure increasing markets, more investors, more powerful shareholders, and thus, ultimately, greater profits.

Those scientists who believe that publishing their great work with journals of "repute" or with big impact factors are simply being fooled by the marketing game that we are part of. Ultimately, our intellect is being scalped, for free, our money is taken (either by ridiculously high article processing charges, submission costs, or university-paid bundling fees) and our expertise is squeezed dry in the form of FREE editorial work. Science and scientists remain the most exploited sector of the professional societies we live in. And, to some extent, we have only ourselves to blame, for accepting this model, and for sitting in silence.

I don't understand why publishers should ban scientists for publishing. I may understand that authors/scientists and competitiveness sometimes may cause reviewers or editors to treat submissions of papers in unfair ways sometimes, but as a principle, and being scientists we should be free to explain and publish our results, works, opinions, etc. either positive or negative, to have discussions with other scientists and professionals in our areas of interest. That interactions will always be positive for the future of science. We are supposed to be open-minded people.

I don't understand why publishers should ban scientists for publishing.

Recently, I received an email that my name has been assigned to Russian's black list!

You can see the email text in below. i am very surprised about this unprofessional behavior by these publication. It is should be noted that i have not any article submitted in the Russian's publications.  I want share this experience with you.

Dear Author

Hello. Since you violated the copy right law your name has been assigned to Russian's black list of publications and soon actions are going to be taken to put your name in the black list of the majority of international journals by Russian's publications . Therefore if you have any defenses in this respect please contact us to be noted as your last defense.

Sincerely Yours

Sender: Helena Lola

Why all the fusss? A publisher is no charity organisation with any obligation to morals or whatever. He is offering services to his own conditions and either you like the coditions or you don´t. The entire peer review process and publishing through commercial companies is prone to what all the colleagues answering to this question have complained about. Its a never ending question and never will be fair!

Ewald, one of your comments is very surprising: "A publisher is no charity organisation with any obligation to morals or whatever." Taylor and Francis / Informa and Elsevier are COPE (Committee of Publication Ethics) members, and are under strict editorial and publishing ethics restrictions (perhaps you need to read some of the documents more carefully). It is up to us, scientists, to ensure that editors and publishers are respecting their own ethical policies, and to call them out when they are not. This is called holding "them" accountable, and ensuring that editorial practices are conducted under maximum transparency. Currently, they are not, and far from it.

I do agree with you about two things: a) ultimately, it is only about the money (our money to make their profits); b) it is not fair. However, you and others can make the system fair by complaining about the problems, and standing up to the status quo when it abuses its rights and powers. You owe that to science.

you put too much emotion in  that subject, dear Jamie: peer reviewing is in a way some sort of "cloak and dagger" operation which helps the publisher to cut down the number of papers to be printed to the desired number for a volume.  Making the customers believe its only done besed on scientific merrits is part of the myth. Ever asked yourself Why do we need codes of ethics in sience? Simple answer: because there is no much ethics left in our business nowadays! Wind of change ...!

Ewald, once again, thank you for your frank response and viewpoint. Emotion and passion are sometimes borne from strife and struggles for righteousness. What I would agree with is that ethics is one part of the business model, and is thus also ethically questionable in its current state. It implies that ethics can be bought and twisted to suit the profit model. And it can allow COPE, who received substantial monetary "membership" fees for its "charity", to say that it has no power to enforce the ethical hand of such publishers when they are caught red-handed in clear ethical infringement and editorial abuse.

In a word, it is a farse.

The ethics base of the for-profit greedy exploratory model in place by these two publishers is therefore questionable. There is no myth there. Everyone knows it but too many are afraid to speak out against it for fear of professional retaliation. That is why the establishment and my critics dislike me so much. Because I have never benefitted financilaly from my publications, and because I am fully transparent - too transparent for them - leaving them very little to criticize except for tone and language use. The wind of change that you allude to will stop blowing if everybody just sits around waiting for someone else to clean up the mess. The comfort zone that most scientists exist in, and that these publishers explore, is part of the problem. 

If you look at how I exposed the editorial corruption and cronyism at the Archives of Biological Sciences, you will see that they were quick to react because that journal was the life-line of a national science symbol in Serbia. So, they had much to lose by having the truth released. In the case of Elsevier and Taylor & Francis / Informa, we are dealing with massive publishers with deeply entrenched reach, influence, and power. You need look only at Elsevier's parent company Reed-Elsevier, to better understand what we are dealing with. Why do you think the boycott against Elsevier 2-3 years ago just fizzled with about 10000 signatures?

So, in a case like mine, where I have been banned by these publishers, they have the power and the arrogance (expressed as silence), to exert that suppression of criticism. They have the legal teams to back them up, the PR machinery to stiffle the voices of criticism and the legal jargon to detract the critics. And, in 99.999% of the cases, they probably do. That is why I represent such a headache for them.

In essence, what has taken/is taking place in the literature of Elsevier and Taylor and Francis journals is not much better than what took place in the Archives of Biological Sciences. For one simple reason: traditional peer review has failed its intended purpose, and the publishers are strongly resisting correcting the literature. Not all journals, and not all editors, but an unknown many.

Background on Archives of Biological Sciences here:

http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/archives-of-biological-sciences/

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/12/serbian-journal-accepts-paper-in-24-hours-with-no-peer-review-demands-eur-1785/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282366831_Archives_of_Biological_Sciences_From_Falling_Star_to_Glimmer_of_Hope

So, Ewald, let's keep talking and discussing, with others, openly, even if we do not agree on everything.

Article Archives of Biological Sciences: From Falling Star to Glimmer of Hope

we´ll do!

According to my experience, it is becomes more and more difficult for editors to find reviewers for those journals, where publication if free of charge. So I naively thought that when authors are to pay this is a payment at least partly for the proper review. And it is sad to learn from Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva that this may be different. But I am afraid that no attempt to demand justice will be successful. The only way out is to make people know about the policy of this kind of journals and to avoid publication in them. I hope there are still some decent journals, where we can publish our research.

I think science is a service to humanity and all our research are a search to find answers to problems faced by our fellowmen, when this very objective is forgotten and research papers are based on false data or are based on stolen data and ideas, or interpretation of data to mislead the human race , then those scientists who do such things should be banned

Mathala and Guzel, thank you for your thoughts. Guzel, what you seem to be suggesting is that when a publisher hands out an unjust punishment that we should simply look for another publisher. But surely that does not make the publisher accountable for its actions, especially when the precise reasons are not explained to the public. Guzel, are you suggesting, given your surprise at my revelations, that more scientists should share openly and publicly of their negative experiences with editors and publishers? That way more scientists can learn about the "truth", and not just the marketing messages handed out by publishers.

Mathala, your idea is very interesting. So, if a scientific paper has false, misleading or manipulated data or figures, in your opinion, how many such papers does one need to have before being banned? Should such a scientist be banned independent of the ethics investigation by their research institute? Should the exact parameters that lead to a scientist being banned be clearly defined on a publisher's web-site, or can they simply decide behind closed doors who gets banned? In fact, generally scientists are banned when they are caught for academic misconduct, their papers are retracted, etc. But that is not the case with me: I was banned because I exposed the flaws of the publisher, I revealed the weaknesses of their peer reviews, and also exposed editorial corruption. In other words, I was basically banned for being a whistle-blower.

At Retraction Watch, you may find one category "reason for retraction":

http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/

And as a sub-category, there is a banning section:

http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/publishing-bans/

I think more scientists need to start debating these issues.

It is fully illgeal that scientists be banned by journals and publishers, those who have been critical of editors and editorial incompetence, poor or unprofessional peer review, or problems caused by or created by publishers/fraud journals. I learnt that Dr. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva was banned by 1. "Elsevier's Scientia Horticulturae" in 2014; 2. "Taylor and Francis / Informa" in 2015; 3. GM crops and Food"because he exposed the flaws of the publisher, weaknesses of their peer reviews, and also exposed thier editorial corruption.  I am agreed with Dr. Silva that we (scientists) should start debating these issues for resolving the corruption of fraud journals/publishers.

Dear Akbar, thank you for the passionate defense (as a disclaimer to readers, Akbar is one of my collaborators and co-authors). In order to start a discussion, you and others have to ask yourselves:

a) have you seen or been the victim of cases of unfair editorial practices or publisher abuse?

b) have you detected errors or flaws in the system, errors in the literature, or incoherent information in publicly available information? If yes, what did you do in such cases?

c) have you challenged an editor or publisher? If yes, have you reported the case, and the outcome, publicly?

The discussion might not take place or progress if problems are kept silent, or secret. Many scientists will fear the repercussions and fall-out of making a public report against an editor or publisher. Such cases of whistle-blowing can damage one's job security, professional name, and salary/grants. So, it is understandable if my call for a discussion fades away, or falls on deaf ears, because of the risks.

Given these risks, Akbar, how do you propose holding editors and publishers accountable? This question was recently asked at PubPeer:

https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/2E91E8916236A6EE03F372E64FBBAF

Dear reader (s), for your kind information Dr. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silava and me working together about 7 years and we are published some good papers in different journal. In this time I found him honest and critical of editors/editorial incompetence, poor or unprofessional peer review, or problems caused by or created by publishers. We have faced some difficultues to published our works in 7 years collaboration. Examples: Firstly we faced /defenced an unfair editorial decision or publisher abuse from one of the Russian Journal: Journal of Stress Physiology & Biochemistry (http://www.jspb.ru). The editorial board withdrawn our acepted two published  papers and still they did not reply on our quiry. Another one wrong decision from Journal of Crop Improvement (we fought against wrong decision with Editor in Chief of the journal). Third one from an Academic Journal: Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science (http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JPBCS). The journal wanted money after published our paper. But we fought against journal charge and we did not pay any money.

Dear Akbar, thank you for discussing these examples openly. I plan to release such case studies starting in 2016 to hold these irresponsible powerful editors and their do-as-they-like journals and publishers accountable. Readers are alerted that Journal of Crop Improvement is published by Taylor & Francis, the publisher than banned me in late September, 2015:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcim20

I consider banning of scientists from publishing based on peer interaction unnecessary. First, if a scientist as raised an issue about peer review, the issue raised should be addressed. For instance if a scientist as opined that there was no peer review. Clear evidence of peer review should be provided to him/her to ally any fears. If the issue raised borders on publishing policies , clarifications should be made by the publisher to the scientist.. It is always beneficial to isolate issues from personalities . One thing i have come to realize in my scientific endeavors is tat no one knows it all. We should be open to constructive criticism. I appreciate it very much when i make explanations/clarifications to editors and they understand. I suggest that Elsevier/Taylor and Francis should address the issues raised rather than banning a scientist. This approach will be more constructive and beneficial to the advancement of science. Philippa

Dear Philippa, many thanks for your input and wise objectivity. We would hope that Elsevier and Taylor and Francis follow your advice. Even though COPE (Natalie Ridgeway) formally requested Taylor and Francis to be open and transparent about the ban, very unfortunately, they have not. It's all about profit, I'm afraid, and silencing the voices of the critics if they interfere with the smoothness of the business model. Science and science publishing are, regrettably, not the noble fields that we thought they were. We, the scientists, our work, our intellect, and our rights are just commodities that can be traded, and discarded, when no longer needed. The more who realize this, the better.

Dr. Samir C. Debnath, one of the key members of the editors who ensured I got banned after I challenged his literature, has resigned as the Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier's Scientia Horticulturae on December 31, 2015. His email stated, written in the third person, simply:

"The contract of Samir Debnath as an Editor-in-Chief of Scientia Horticulturae was ended on December 31, 2015."

I trust that Dr. Debnath will now tend to correcting the literature.

Debnath (2003):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/7D27CF4AA4E9A07E34FD482D381856

Debnath (2006):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/C905E8D40BE5DFA86D2D251C814D96

Debnath (2007):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/825C92576BE5C5E81C8311368D37FF

Debnath (2007):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/9CEDBD80564DE48CEDD1DEB606C503

Debnath (2008):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/213660EEAA8DAEF841EA204F7CFD3C

Debnath (2009):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/6ECD7340D853265B2E13BC05F324AC

Debnath (2009):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/9FD632A024F91E79D6A337AB94B2F1

Debnath (2010):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/D2AE786706D919B096604F2AE1C59E

*Debnath (2011):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/FC84EB091248845E2F7749A918BB1A

Debnath (2011):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/FC84EB091248845E2F7749A918BB1A

Debnath (2011):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/975920570A46D93A15F253D6AB7E0A

Debnath (2012):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/AB78ABEA7841D810540AA648BBF22C

Debnath et al. (2012):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/6A2E628381272A58BCA142532C209F

Debnath et al. (2012):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/CD566A706164CA483D34E59E211F32

Debnath (2014):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/451661E7CA3294A69FC8DEED38FC2D

Debnath (2014):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/814EF1428D9E1F1407F5DE608F37C0

Debnath (2014):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/8350894ABD8147B4FBA58017B42D59

Debnath (2014):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/0006A9FF84598C2E9EC7E45B6D556D

Debnath (2014):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/A905DD5F7AB3E6FA48739BA509F191

Debnath (2015):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/D6C3FA5DACFC48D9661F91F31DCF4B

*Debnath (2015: erratum):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/F07FDBB2F28077741CBEF4A0F6A834

Goyali et al. (2015):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/955546EBDE6CB02186CF1624126BD0

Debnath (2016):

https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/221D54A512A1D674B07DB5ADC2E9EA

I think a scientist should be banned for gross misconduct and any misdemeanors that result in a journal losing its reputation provided the journal is ethical in its dealings which should be in line with international standards.  In this regard, any act by a scientist that results in a false evaluation of research results and/ or their implications or applications should be deemed punishable by banning.  this would include plagiarism, multiple submissions,false citation,false data, manufacturing of data, hoaxes,  fraud in authorship of manuscripts, false data values to attain statistical significance,etc.  However, as a Scientist, I will also have my right to "ban" for submission of my work certain journal that have gross misconducts in the publication process e.g. some journals are just in it for the money.  Some journals/publishers eschew peer review.  A paper is published in two days provided that someone is able to pay so as scientists.  Some journal or publishers use fake editors and produce plagiarized papers.  When we get this type of information for instance from Jeffrey Beal's predatory  list, I personally avoid my name to be associated with those types of journals.

Dear Stanley, excellent points and nice, strong, firm positions!

These two issues may interest you and others who are following the ban by Elsevier and Taylor  Francis:

a) The danger of using Beall's lists, which are imperfect, for official purposes:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/BCD633B9ED1E8D276332197843B3F9

b) The central role of COPE in what I believe to be a protection of paying COPE members, in dealing with valid complaints about biased editors, flawed peer review, or problematic literature (i.e., despite its name, this "ethical" protection may be used as a protective cover to deviate the attention of scientists):

https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/2E91E8916236A6EE03F372E64FBBAF

Bottom line, Stanley, all voices are valid, but at what point does a critic get squashed for revealing too much truth, and does this fit into your categories you list above?

I always think positive criticism is good for any organization. It allows us to re-look on how the system will be operating and hopefully best standards will be instituted and get practiced.  I am not sure whether we should really ban valid criticism and in any case this should be considered as per each case and the merit it may  deserve.  I have received criticism on my work; some of which was not warranted and some of which I needed to carry out adjustments to the produced work.  We live in a world where each contribution by an individual makes the human race whole but we need to have the best practice always.

I agree with sentiments concerning Beall's list of potential predatory journals.  I now use it as a guide because our papers are evaluated by the University Library system which unfortunately/fortunately  uses his list as some kind of a  reference.  I have personal experiences with some of the Journals on the list.  In one instance it was advisable not to use a particular journal and in another case it was not.  When I submitted my one paper to one of the journals on the list.  The response from the editor or reviewer was very poor and I was getting comments that had nothing to do with my paper.  In order  to make the paper be of Journal quality, the response lay with you the author who had to format it for journal printing.  Their system made the diagrams submitted look pathetic.  I am ashamed of this good paper whose data was just  wasted.  I immediately withdrew 2 other manuscripts that I had submitted to the same publisher.  However, I realized that two of my papers that went through a normal review process and were published in another journal by a different publisher.  That journal was then  put up on his list later.  So what does this mean to me?  At one stage the papers are deemed acceptable using the Beall's list and then at another point in time the papers are no longer good because the journal has become predatory.  There needs to be some checks somewhere as there are arguments for and against the list

When should scientists be banned by journals and publishers?

This question appears rather unanswerable especially when there exist numerous venues for publication of science related materials. I understand science is in essence search for truth. Final truth none knows! Journals are run by individuals who are also expected to be in pursuit of good science materials. It may not be true in every case. Nevertheless let us not target any particular journal for publishing. What a scientist publishes  is more important- should be in a reasonably good journal so that it should reach others who are looking for what you wish to say. Therefore scientist should never be disappointed and should continue his interests without wavering. It should not matter much that some journals or publishers might ban a scientist by refusing to publish the good work. Push forward the efforts and get it published elsewhere..

-- M D Subash Chandran

Dr. Chandran, I appreciate the response. I have to disagree with almost everything you say, but I tell you honestly, I understand the sentiment behind what you are saying. I can appreciate that we, as scientists, should not be motivated by the outlet (i.e, the journal), but we are in a highly biased education system that rewards scientists with fake metrics like the impact factor, because scientists and their institutes need to feel that they need to quantify the success, performance and output of a scientist. So, yes, your puritan views on science publishing are noble, but they are not real! I assume that you are from India, where the IF is highly gamed, as it is in many countries, particularly developing countries. Wherever you may find great gaps in social level, and thus also financial status, there will always be massive room for abuse of the system. Some mega-centers for possible abuse would be India, China, Iran, Turkey and several other countries in the Middle East (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, possibly most other South American countries, where output is presently heavily associated with, and rewarded by, the IF score. So, a target journal is no longer a random issue in plant science, it is biased. IT is driven by the wrong parameters.

When I criticized a Taylor & Francis journal for not providing any peer review or editorial comments on my manuscript, which I was sure was certainly not perfect at submission, it was accepted automatically. One catch: I was requested to pay over 600 US$. I am talking about the journal Communicative & Integrative Biology. This journal does not have an IF, but it does claim to be peer reviewed. How is t possible then, that my imperfect paper could be accepted automatically by the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. František Baluška? This practice would be no better, or even worse, than any publisher on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory journals.

When I contacted Taylor & Francis, and suggested that their practice and false peer review (or better, no peer review) was predatory, I was banned!

So, Dr. Chandran, your ideas are perfect... for a perfect world. But we are in a publishing system right now that is fraught with third party interests, publishers who do not care about the scientific quality of work, only about profit and making their share-holders happy.

This makes me think, what has the value and purpose of publishing become?

I understand the trauma and pain the scientist experiences. There is need to develop alternative culture of propping up genuine journals with quality works; because wherever one publishes, if it is available to mankind, the scientist can march forward his work undiminished in grandeur it deserves. 

Dear Dr. Chandran, may I ask you a very difficult question (please feel free not to answer) because you are in an extremely important Indian research institute. You probably know that many journals listed on Jeffrey Beall's lists are based in India (maybe the majority):

https://scholarlyoa.com/

In several of those journals, one can observe (not only from India, but I would like your opinion as an Indian researcher) studies of extremely poor quality. It is possible that many such studies could not be published in indexed or "impacted" journals, but that scientists still wanted to display their work, even if faulty.

When you say "the scientist can march forward his work undiminished in grandeur it deserves", do you mean that anything and everything should be published? For example, are Indian scientists rewarded for publishing in such academically suspect journals?

Readers might be asking, what is the link to my original question? Well, you said that the choice of journal is not important, and that if we are banned from one set of journals we can just move to another set. I agree, but what safe, reliable and ethical options are there?

Dear Dr de Silva,

Your perspective is well understood and I had not unexpected this response. India is a land of good and bad journals and catering to a large number of people by publishing their works. None needs to be disappointed as either payment or journals craving for some works will both fulfill their needs. Most Indian journals pale into insignificance before the western ones. I don't advise you to opt for one here. 

From your letter I learn that all is not fair there even with some journals of repute. The ban on you from publishing in Taylor & Francis, without proper justification is something  irrational. The problem is graver than that I thought. You certainly deserve an explanation. Please forget my philosophization 

Dear Dr. Chandran, I applaud you for sharing your frank thoughts. Yes, indeed, my argument is that there are serious problems in many journals and many publishers, not only those on Beall's lists. However, publishing corporations like Elsevier, Taylor & Francis/Informa and Springer-Nature have a massive stronghold on publishing, with a tight grip on publishing, and also now attempting desperately to gain control of, and monopolize, ethics. So, speaking out against a "predatory" journal on the Beall list is easy. But speaking out against a multi-billion dollar per year profit publisher is more complicated. Even when we are right. The term "threat" will be used to describe what a layman would simply see as a "valid complaint", the term "excessive" will be used to describe about 15 complaints and the list of euphemisms concocted by the legal and managerial departments of such corporations will drown out any possibility of a balanced or fair argument.

The sign of a truly corrupted entity that fails to display honesty, openness, transparency and accountability is their silence, especially when challenged in public.

The sign of a true whistle-blower and critic is their relentless noise.

The we have the remaining 99.99999% of the scientific sheep, who are too afraid to speak out, even when they see something wrong, for fear of loss of their own selfish needs and benefits. The culture of protest does not exist in science. It is a tyranny, an oligopoly where wealth extraction has reached unprecedented levels, and where ethics is sold and marketed, but not put into real practice, and where the voice of the critic is squashed, through actions like banning.

I will never expect Taylor & Francis or Elsevier to lift their bans. They're too arrogant for that. But that will not stop me from protesting this unfair attempted ejection from the system based on a limited number of critical views of the establishment.

Your letter is too touching, and I wonder in what era we are living! Tyranny of different brand in civil attire but with characteristic corporate  blitz to douse even a free flying spark- to mute a lone scientist-  But Prometheus is a parallel phenomenon forever-  not just proverbial-.