Comments on: Andrew Burd: Naughty editor, bad editor

By: Liz Wager

Liz Wager — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:11:41 +0000

At the risk of sounding repetitive, that's also something that COPE recommends! But, as referral to the ombudsman is relatively rare, so the job is not onerous, I'd be surprised if any journals offer to pay for this service any more than they pay their peer reviewers.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:07:31 +0000

Felix, excellent idea…who shall we approach first?!

By: felix freshwater

felix freshwater — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 05:59:00 +0000

Maybe the answer about who should censor the bad editor is for the journal to have an ombudsman – independent from the editor. FWIW, The New York Times has had an ombudsman for years with the position being occupied by different respected journalists. Now smaller journals may not be able to afford an ombudsman so perhaps we start a company and consult for various journals.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:46:40 +0000

John, that is the whole point. The thought crossed my mind but as it is a "family" journal I decided not to on this occasion but there is a very real, not a subtle, a real, shift in the balance of power between the individual and the establishment. In this case substitute the reader and the editor of a journal. The so called "Jasmine revolution" has wide reaching implications and the power of the 'blog' cannot be underestimated. When you look at the fate of Dr Edmund's as revealed in retraction watch (http://retractionwatch.wordpre.../) you almost feel sorry for the poor man. I think what this does mean is that people have got to be more polite with each other and that surely is not a bad thing; and more honest and more fair. All good points. Unfortunately it is possible to be pretty vicious in the blog world too and that is a reason to have some moderation in process, as in the BMJ blogs. I am wondering aloud but if I had put the name of the journal in my posting would it have been removed? We may find out if further transgression's occur! Anyway many thanks for your comment John.

By: John Addison

John Addison — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:45:49 +0000

One other thing that we, or at least you, could do is to name the journal you're writing about.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:04:40 +0000

Liz, to extend this further I think that editors, as a group, tend to be more feline in nature so a healthy growl most probably is quite effective! Apart from those who are deaf!

By: Liz Wager

Liz Wager — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:37:57 +0000

Precisely — COPE can only name and shame, and it can only consider complaints against its members. I realise this may sound somewhat toothless, but we have found that editors do take complaints seriously and have, in the past, been willing to rectify problems. To continue your canine analogy, our bark is worse than our bite, but we have found that growling at editors can be surprisingly effective!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:13:16 +0000

Ivan, yes I had seen your piece on Dr Edmund's before. I thought it was excellent though I had to cringe for him. Don't you have an American term for it..something like "owned"!

Keep up the good work.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:18:50 +0000

Liz, many thanks...as always COPE has an answer. But in the very real case I was describing it is just a little difficult as this is a "family" journal and it is a question of what we can do and what we should do! The reality is that there are papers in the smaller journals that appear to be "gifted"..ie the Editor is at a meeting, likes a presentation and asks the authors to submit to their journal because they are always short of copy.

I am keeping quiet this time but am keeping a close eye on things!

But as we have discussed before...what can COPE do? Name and shame but not sanction?

By: Ivan Oransky

Ivan Oransky — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:09:26 +0000

Thanks, Felix, for the shout-out for Retraction Watch!

Anderw: We'd welcome “Watch for Retraction Watch,” or any other scrutiny of what we do. While we have no official standing to “censor the bad editor,” we certainly call into question a lot of retraction practices. Just one example: http://retractionwatch.wordpre…/

Best,
Ivan Oransky
Retraction Watch

By: Liz Wager

Liz Wager — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:51:58 +0000

COPE's Code of Conduct for Editors has always emphasized editors' responsibility to publish cogent criticism of things they have published in their journals. The latest version (to be launched in a couple of weeks time) states “Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal. Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.” If a COPE member doesn't follow this Code, you can bring a complaint against them to COPE … so there IS something you can do.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:20:54 +0000

Felix, I need to find out more about this but what 'drives' the retractions? I know some of the more responsible medical journals do engage in internal vetting and housekeeping but many cling onto their flawed and failed papers with the utmost of tenacity – fearing perhaps a judgment for letting them through in the first place. But retraction watch is not going to censor the bad editor is it? Perhaps we should have another site called,”Watch for retraction watch.”!

By: felix freshwater

felix freshwater — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:31:28 +0000

Thank goodness for “Retraction Watch” http://retractionwatch.wordpre…/