Registar    Entrar    Fórum    Pesquisar    FAQ     RSS

Índice do Fórum » Geral » Novidades, Notícias e Avisos

Criar Novo Tópico Responder a este Tópico  [ 1 mensagem ] 
Autor Mensagem
 Assunto da Mensagem: Apologise
 Mensagem Enviado: Terça Maio 15, 2018 8:55 am 
cientista sempre presente
cientista sempre presente

Registado: Quarta Dez 09, 2015 8:17 am
Mensagens: 619
Universidade/ Instituto: Minho
I must apologise Editor-in-Chief Leonard Leibivici, concerning the email below of December 26, because it seems that he´s not the only one in the business of high percentage desk rejection. The new Editor-in-Chief of another Elsevier journal, the European Management Journal" just publish an editorial saying that the journal rejects more than 90% of the papers that it receives and also that 76% are simply desk rejected without peer review:

The Editor-in-Chief Minas Kastanakis explains in the editorial that:
"Desk rejecting is not a hostile task but one that respectfully separates articles that need fundamental rethinking from those that – with varying effort – can make a polished, brilliant intellectual contribution"

What is most interesting is the hypothesis that he and the other editorial members can and will find the papers that represent brilliant intelectual contributions without the reviewers help ! The truth is that this Editor and also other Editors will soon miss the days when they use to received for free a high amount of papers allowing them to presumptuously desk reject the majority of them.

Conflict of interest- According to his CV Minas Kastanakis is a "world-renowned expert in luxury consumption and luxury products' management"
It´s well known that I have strong reserves on luxury products an in a past email of February i wrote that they not only embody the "confortable lifestyles" that Martin Desvaux spoke agaist but that also are related to economic inequality and even big corruption thus preventing humankind advancement.

De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 26 de Dezembro de 2017 15:01
Assunto: The time has come for authors to show Publisher´s who´s the Boss and who is the helper

Below some extracts of an Editorial authored by Leonard Leibovici, Editor in chief of the journal

"Clinical Microbiology and Infection" published by Elsevier.

It contains several interesting statements trying to explain (but failing to do so) why 60% of the papers in his journals are desk rejected without peer review. What it does not contain is an explanation why they can only published a limited number of articles. This journal publishes less than 400 papers per year.

It would be more honest if he said that publishing more articles could damage their impact factor like it was revealed by Senior Scientist Enrico Traversa in the paper that i recently received from Thomas Pardoen of KU Leuven and share it last week available at

The truth is that this Editor in Chief, as well many other editors are not infallible, so when he says that he reject papers because those are not of interest for the readers of that journal that is just a guessing game at best, and as other editors he will also ended desk reject high quality articles.

A study published on PNAS shows exactly that
Not to mention that this posture is indirectly responsible for papers in which authors forged innovative results and also helps to boost the rampant numbers of predatory journals.

The idea that in the 21 century editors still have the power decide what readers are interested in is not just condescending but almost insulting. Its an arrogant decision for an editor in chief to come forward revealing that his journals desk rejects 60% of the papers. The time will come when journals will have to search, to ask (and even to pay) authors to publish their work and not the other way around because its authors and not journals (or editors) that generate the most part of the publishing value.

I never signed or even agreed with the widely known Elsevier boycott

because its just naïve to think that its possible to boycott a publisher that edits several thousand journals without also causing a lot of damage to the scientific community, especially to young researchers that desperate need to publish in those journals in order to stay in the game.

The only pratical and effective solution is to start a boycott on the journal with the highest impact factor. If the scientific community were able to put that journal out of business that will send a strong message to the Publishers. And if they don´t understand it then the second with the highest impact factor should be next journal in line to be boycotted. Repeating the process until the Publishers ordered Editors-in-Chief to stop this impact factor related massive desk rejection.

Resposta com citações  
Mostrar mensagens anteriores:  Ordenar por  
Criar Novo Tópico Responder a este Tópico  [ 1 mensagem ] 

Índice do Fórum » Geral » Novidades, Notícias e Avisos

Quem está ligado

Utilizadores a navegar neste fórum: Nenhum utilizador registado e 5 visitantes


Criar Tópicos: Proibído
Responder Tópicos: Proibído
Editar mensagens: Proibído
Apagar mensagens: Proibído
Enviar anexos: Proibído

Pesquisar por:
Ir para:  
Alojamento oferecido por David A.