On 9-3-2009 6:07, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> It saddens me to realize I believe that people would do this
>> maliciously, rather than just being stubborn or close-minded. Sigh.
> 
> 	Ugh. Not that rare, but depends on the discipline, and subdiscipline. I
> highly suspect it is common in physics and engineering, and the more
> grant money that is involved, the more common the behavior.

Indeed the examples that I know of are in cardiology.

> My math
> friend was surprised to hear these stories, and I suspect it's because
> math faculty rarely get grants, and aren't expected to.***
> 
> 	This is just based on anecdotal observations, though.
> 
> 	Here's a common one that happened to me and that same colleague
> independently. Submit a paper with the title along the lines of
> "Investigating the effects of A on device X". The referee responds
> saying the paper is poor because it doesn't investigate the effects of B
> on X. We then have to send the editor a response saying "The paper is a
> study of A on X, not of B on X" at which point he finds another referee.
> 
> 	It hurt me in particular because the second referee then found another
> (slightly more intelligent) complaint, and we weren't allowed to respond
> because the journal had a 2 strike rule. I always wondered if the first
> referee did it intentionally just so that we'd waste one opportunity to
> respond.

In the journals that I mentioned you can appeal to the editor if you can 
show that a referee did not do its job. This should of course be the 
exception. With that particular PhD project we have two out of two 
(actually 3 out of two as the previous editor rejected the paper on 
dubious grounds and we appealed to the new editor). That does not feel good.

Post a reply to this message