This post is on editorial rejection, and the claim that you made and to which I replied was that your “personal problem with publication is work which appears to fly in the face of all current thinking.” This means that you need to overturn conventional thinking, or prove that your work deserves inclusion alongside mainstream ideas. I do not intend to be disrespectful in saying that the claims that you wish to make sound as though they might not be so very far from some of the wacky ideas that have been put forward in the past and which have resulted in some people failing to receive treatment for curable conditions. On this basis alone, I am not surprised to hear that your results have been rejected by (possibly overly conservative) reviewers. Nevertheless, this is the opposition that you are up against if publication is your aim. I am suggesting that you might be able to achieve publication for your results in small steps. The first being, to get the idea out for consideration, the second to present scientific results that must be of extraordinarily high quality if you wish to be sufficiently convincing to publish.

Your work falls well outside my expertise, so I would not be able to make any judgement on it, however, it seems to me that if you have encountered difficulty publishing, then you need to establish that you are an extremely serious and credible scientist when presenting your results. They must be more than usually convincing (larger studies, better statistics, more convincing argumentation) than conventional findings to pass an audit. If you incorporated the results in a review, you would be mentioning your them for completeness, and as something out of the ordinary. (However “more than one case” does not give me the impression that you have the statistics required.) You would, probably and quite rightly, be able to claim that your extraordinary results would require the investment of considerable resources to test them out because, being controversial, they would need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This probably transforms your problem into one of funding!

I will not be replying further because my interest is in the editorial issues under discussion.

–I’m not against the use of working scientists as journal editors–all of the journals I currently manage have that arrangement. I just have a hard time accepting any such decision without any evidence to back it up.–

I’d love to have evidence on the question. Any idea of where I can get it? In the meantime, it seems to me we can have a philosophical (non-empirical) debate about it.

–If I’m going to take a creationist to task for basing teaching decisions on feelings (“I don’t want to have descended from an ape!”) then I have to apply that same level of rigor to my own actions and decisions.–

I don’t think the stakes are quite that high in this case………..

–There are clear examples where leading journals are run by professional full time editors (and this extends way beyond the absolute top tier journals like Nature and Cell). I want to know how those journals can be so successful and respected if, as you propose, the editors are incapable of making good decisions.–

I admit to having a cloistered view of the scientific publishing world. My viewpoint is that of a basic scientist, and the professional (mostly scientifically inexperienced and unaccompmlished) editors nearly rule that world.

–Is “it just feels this way” good enough reason to determine the course of scientific research?–

No. Let’s talk it through (which is all we can do in the absence of empirical evidence).

–Really, I think we need good editors, regardless of their employment status. There are many journals run by working scientist editors that are of poor quality, just as, as you note, there are professional editors who don’t do a good job either. No one likes to be judged, and this is an emotionally charged area. But I’ve seen just as much resentment leveled at working scientist editors as I have at professional editors. Perhaps this gets somewhat magnified at the top journals, as the stakes are so high–

The stakes being so high is exactly the problem!

“Today the coin of the realm is an article published in a few select journals with alluring covers and double-digit impact factors. Students vying for the best postdoctoral placements, postdocs contending for scarce faculty positions, and faculty seeking promotion and tenure all believe that they must publish articles in a few favored journals to reach their goal. And they are not wrong: the people choosing postdocs and making appointment and promotion decisions tend to put more weight on articles published in those journals (their claims to the contrary ring hollow). This situation reaches its apogee outside of the United States, where the impact factor (measured to four significant figures!) looms large over hiring and promotion decisions.”

–but really, being rejected is upsetting no matter who is making the decision.–

I don’t think so. Being rejected by a respected peer “who has tread the same path as the authors, who wrestles every day with the unknown, who knows from hard-won
experience what it takes to tell a significant story” should be more palatable than being rejected by a 30-year old just out of his/her postdoc with 1 or 2 peer-reviewed publications under his/her belt (really; do a PubMed search on some of them).

“Do professional editors possess Solomonic wisdom? Some, perhaps. But I havemore confidence in an editor who has tread the same path as the authors, who wrestles every day with the unknown, who knows from hard-won experience what it takes to tell a significant story. Being a practicing scientist does not ensure wisdom, but experience—recent, relevant experience—breeds sound judgment. It seems obvious that the endorsement of a peer should carry more weight than the approval of an administrator, but the hegemony of the ordained journals results in the opposite. This situation seems surreal.”

–I’m not sure I’d be willing to draw such strict lines based solely on the single criterion of employment status. I know professional editors who have been running journals for decades, who read thousands of papers and attend enormous numbers of meetings every year. These experienced professionals are better-versed in the big picture of the fields they cover than most working scientists, simply because they can devote their full attention to covering the field.–

Ah, now that’s a valid point! I concede that the professional editors have the advantage that they’re able to focus ALL their energy on the journal. I admit that that’s one area where peer-editing is at a significant disadvantage.

–Scientists very often become very focused on their area of research and build a deep but narrow level of specialized knowledge. The professional editor has the freedom to remain a generalist.–

Another good point. Academics do tend to become……..well……….academic. I think this is the strongest argument for professional editors.

–If, as you suggest, the ability to judge science should be based on a PubMed search of the editor’s publication record, then the vast majority of scientists currently working are disqualified.–

But the vast majority of scientists currently working aren’t chosen as peer-editors of well-regarded journals. My journal (and most other well-regarded peer-edited journals, I’m sure) choose their peer-editors very carefully. In fact, we do disqualify the vast majority of scientists currently working.

–The majority of authors appear in the literature only once. Which means we should probably do away with our peer review system as it is being populated by incompetents.–

Huh? The peer-editors of my journal (and I’m sure of most other peer-edited journals) choose their reviewers carefully, based on the reviewer’s expertise and proven record of accomplishment and judgment. I mean, we don’t pick reviewers at random from lists of authors. And in fact that’s the point: peer-editors who are part of the practicing scientific community know which of their peers are able to judge their peers and which ones are able to provide them insightful advice on submitted mss..

–Or at least we should put the entire burden on those few whose CV’s are up to snuff.–

Yes. And we do.

–Where is the line drawn then? If someone is a working scientist in industry, are they capable of judging the work done by someone in academia?–

If the Editor knows the person and his/her work and has confidence in his/her judgment, then of course YES! I have many colleagues who are practicing scientists in industry who have the wisdom and experience to judge the work of their peers in academia, and I’ve often used them as reviewers.

–Most PI’s in my experience move away from the bench fairly early in their careers. If you’re not conducting experiments yourself, are you to be considered a “practicing” scientist?–

If you’re responsible for advancing knowledge (as the PI is) and therefore “wrestle every day with the unknown” and “know from hard-won experience what it takes to tell a significant story”, then YES.

–Are you capable of judging someone else’s experiments if you haven’t picked up a pipette in 20 years?–

Of course, pipetting everyday is not necessary for one to be able to judge a peer’s story. But one who is tasked with judging other peoples’ hard-won stories needs to have produced his/her own hard-won stories (plural), and be continuing to produce them (yes, usually by guiding surrogates, which is actually harder than doing it yourself……) to know how hard it is to tell a significant story and therefore to be qualified to judge others’ stories.

–The landscape of science continues to change and diversify. It seems somewhat parochial to try to ignore that.–

Indeed! I’m painfully aware of the situation, and I’m not ignoring it………..
— If only 15% of PhD students are going to head toward tenure track faculty positions, what of the other 85% of those in science? Do they have no value? Are they allowed to have a voice as well? If anything, we need to accommodate these new career paths and make them valued members of the community, otherwise science becomes an even less attractive career.–

………as I said in my previous post, there IS a role (a great need, even), for professional editors. It’s just not in making the decisions of which manuscripts to publish. (What I believe is their role is the subject of a separate discussion). But, it seems to me the implication of your statement is that we should give professional editors this role to increase the number and variety of career options for PhDs. I believe the stakes—the integrity of Science (cap S)—are too high to allow us that expediency.

• I know very senior researchers with impressive publication records whose judgment I wouldn’t trust at all. I know postdocs whose advice I’d stake my life on.

Indeed! “Being a practicing scientist does not ensure wisdom, but experience—recent, relevant experience—breeds sound judgment.”

I will point out that the highest impact journals (I’ll be frank: it’s Nature and Cell and their spawns) are edited mostly by postdocs………..I hope they’re all the ones you’d stake your life on, but somehow I doubt it.

• Again, to me the decision stems from the individual and their abilities, not a blind litmus test of employment status or publication record.

Indeed. As I said, the peer-edited journals I am familiar with choose their editors very carefully. And again “……. experience—recent, relevant experience—breeds sound judgment.”

• If you don’t think there’s an enormous level of resentment directed at working scientist editors when they reject papers, then you may just be dealing with a more polite group of scientists than is found in other fields.

Perhaps. It has been my experience that the people who submit to GENETICS are a fairly collegial group (though that’s not to say I’ve never encountered a vituperative attack…….).

• The vituperative, personal attacks that my editors regularly receive are evidence to the contrary (and these are coming from the rare few brave enough to confront an editor, most just grumble quietly to their colleagues). Rejection, being told your work is not good enough, is not an easy thing to take, no matter the source of that decision.

I suspect it’s easier for many authors to defame someone they don’t see as a peer. Of course that doesn’t justify it. And I’m sure authors grumble quietly to their colleagues about peer editors (academics love to grumble……….)

• Also, those 30-year old editors are not making decisions in a vacuum.

At Nature the are! From their website: “Like the other Nature titles, Nature has no external editorial board [It’s breathtaking: they’re actually proud of having NO editorial input from practicing scientists!]. Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a team of full-time professional editors.”

• Each paper is seen by more than one set of eyes, and inexperienced editors have their work overseen by more experienced colleagues.

As at my peer-edited journal. And ALL the editors of my journal who collaborate on these important decisions are people who “tread the same path as the authors, who wrestle every day with the unknown, who know from hard-won experience what it takes to tell a significant story.”

• One question–one of the arguments against the working scientist/professional editor controversy is that many of those railing against professional editors are older, well-established scientists. The suggestion is that this is seen as an attempt by those in power to further entrench that power base. If the older established scientists set themselves up as the only ones competent to judge science (and hence control all the subsequent funding and career rewards that stem from publication) then they remain in power despite a greatly shifting landscape.

Ah, the conspiracy theory………Always a popular one! And why not? It just seems like it MUST be true.

In fact, it’s EXACTLY the opposite, for at least three reasons. First, whatever “power” I have as an editor is granted to me by my community. I have to earn it by making fair decisions on my colleagues’ work. That’s especially true in today’s competitive publishing environment: if the editors of GENETICS don’t do a good and fair job of choosing mss. for publication authors will submit their best work elsewhere.

Second, it doesn’t matter to me what journals I publish in (well…with the exception of P£o$ On€). Senior editors (like me) don’t need (and probably shouldn’t get) any more “career rewards”. The career rewards should go to the next generation; if they don’t Science (cap S) is in trouble. The profession has treated me (and many of my senior colleagues) well, and I’d like to see it treat the next generation of scientists as well. But, much more than for me others of my generation, they have to get their papers past inexperienced, unaccomplished editors. I don’t think that’s treating them (or Science) very well.

Which brings me to my third and most important reason: young scientists today are too much at the mercy of inexperienced, unaccomplished editors. And let’s be frank again: in my realm it’s basically three journals that have most of the influence (everyone knows which ones I’m talking about). “Today the coin of the realm is an article published in a few select journals ……. Students vying for the best postdoctoral placements, postdocs contending for scarce faculty positions, and faculty seeking promotion and tenure all believe that they must publish articles in a few favored journals to reach their goal. And they are not wrong: the people choosing postdocs and making appointment and promotion decisions tend to put more weight on articles published in those journals. This situation reaches its apogee outside of the United States, where the impact factor (measured to four significant figures!) looms large over hiring and promotion decisions.”

I find it absurd that the professional editors at a few journals have such influence over who gets hired, promoted, and funded. It’s not the professional editors’ fault—they’re just trying to do their job—but rather the fault of the senior scientists who sit on hiring and promotions and grant review committees. But that’s a separate discussion.

• Others have made private suggestions to me that the big problem here is the large percentage of editors who are female, and that the gender biases in the culture of science are at play here–male scientists don’t want to be judged by females.

I’ve never heard that one before, and, at the risk of sounding naïve, I’ll say that I’d be surprised if anyone in my scientific community voiced (or even thought) that concern. But, I can imagine there might be some truth to it in other scientific (e.g. medical?) communities. I really don’t know.

OK, we’ve both stated our positions. I’ve appreciated this opportunity to present my views on this; it’s helped me clarify my position. But I think we’re at an impasse. Over-and-out for now.