Journal cut positive comments, author claims

Essex scholar raises fears over peer review integrity

May 2, 2013

Source: Getty

Any good news? All comments should be reported to author, some argue

An academic has called for authors to have the right to see everything written about them in referees’ reports after discovering that positive comments made about a rejected manuscript had been removed.

Mark Harvey, director of the Centre for Research in Economic Sociology and Innovation at the University of Essex, submitted a paper to the Routledge journal Economy and Society last year. It was rejected after being reviewed by five referees, some of whom had been suggested by Professor Harvey.

But by comparing the version of the reviewers’ comments he received with those submitted by two of his recommended referees, he found that several positive comments about his paper had been removed.

Professor Harvey told Times Higher Education he feared that the comments may have been removed to justify the rejection. He added that the form for referees’ comments used by Economy and Society did not suggest that reports could be edited before being shown to authors.

According to Professor Harvey, the journal’s managing editor, Fran Tonkiss, reader in sociology at the London School of Economics, told him that only direct recommendations for publication had been excised from the reports. However, Professor Harvey disputed this and noted that a recommendation against publication in one report remained uncut.

He said Dr Tonkiss had told him that the journal would alter the wording of its referees’ reporting form to indicate that they could be edited. But Professor Harvey argued that this would merely give editors licence to continue unfairly editing reports. He said that “clear rules” should be laid down stating explicitly that authors should be shown the full version of the reports.

All the colleagues with whom he and one of the referees of his paper - Norman Geras, professor emeritus in politics at the University of Manchester - discussed the case had expressed “surprise and shock” at Economy and Society’s behaviour, Professor Harvey said.

Dr Tonkiss could not be contacted for comment. A Routledge spokeswoman said that information on editorial decisions provided to authors by Economy and Society “combines the feedback from referee reports, board members and the editor”.

Liz Wager, a publication consultant and former chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics, said it was not uncommon for referees’ reports to be edited, and most editors agreed that “offensive, ad hominem attacks” should be cut.

But in her view, “if the editor disagrees with the reviewer - especially over recommendations about whether to publish or not - then it is up to the editor to explain this to the author”.

Irene Hames, an editorial consultant and a Cope council member, agreed. She said reports could also be edited to tidy up ambiguous language or to remove explicitly confidential material. However, “journals shouldn’t use selective editing of reviewer reports to help them justify or be a better fit for a decision”.

“Decision-making should be transparent,” she added.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (2)

Two comments: "But by comparing the version of the reviewers’ comments he received with those submitted by two of his recommended referees"... 1) Does that mean that the article author was mates with the referees so he could receive and compare the unedited version? 2) Shouldn't we want journals to be as selective as possible? Doesn't the integrity of a journal lie in its selectivity? 3) Ultimately, the editors of a journal decide whether or not an article is suitable for publishing, weighing various referee reports against each other (and taking into account whether a referee is "recommended" by the author or chosen by the editorial board).
Re. the comment above, my understanding is that the journal invited authors to nominate three referees. One of those nominated refereees, Professor Geras, told Professor Harvey he had written a review. But Professor Harvey was unable to identify which report he had written, so sent him all the reports. It was at this point he noticed the cuts t his review. Professor Harvey added: "As to the procedure of an author being requested to nominate referees, I personally have not encountered it before, and do not in general support the practice. Both referee and author assumed that the editors would take into account which reports were written by nominated referees when making their decision."

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

question marks PhD study

Selecting the right doctorate is crucial for success. Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman share top 10 tips on how to pick a PhD

Pencil lying on open diary

Requesting a log of daily activity means that trust between the institution and the scholar has broken down, says Toby Miller

India, UK, flag

Sir Keith Burnett reflects on what he learned about international students while in India with the UK prime minister

Application for graduate job
Universities producing the most employable graduates have been ranked by companies around the world in the Global University Employability Ranking 2016
Construction workers erecting barriers

Directly linking non-EU recruitment to award levels in teaching assessment has also been under consideration, sources suggest