Comments on: Peer-Review Scandal Shakes French Geologists http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/01/09/peer-review-scandal-shakes-french-geologists/ What's Hot & What's Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:25:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Dave Jago http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/01/09/peer-review-scandal-shakes-french-geologists/#comment-2226 Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:30:46 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2498#comment-2226 Our process is described by Richard Sever, with the additional twist that I assign the paper to an Associate Editor without letting the EIC know which one (all correspondence is channelled through the office to maintain the blinding). The Associate Editor can then make an adverse decision without risking any fallout.

]]> By: Richard Sever http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/01/09/peer-review-scandal-shakes-french-geologists/#comment-2211 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:35:54 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2498#comment-2211 Phil – This is only an issue in journals that have a single, all-powerful Editor-in-Chief (there are numerous other drawbacks to this beyond conflict of interest).

The simple solution is to have Associate Editors empowered to make decisions independently and make it policy that they handle any submissions for which the Editor-in-Chief would be conflicted. The hard part is dealing with potential fall-out that can ensue – but that is all part of being a wise publisher who picks responsible Editors.

]]>