Radical transparency can fix bad behaviour by academic journals

Revealing desk rejection rates, peer review processing times and other useful operational data would do more to correct slipshod journal practices than an ‘author’s bill of rights’, says Jerry Jacobs

Published on
November 6, 2022
Last updated
November 28, 2022
Jerry Jacobs
Source: istock
Read more about
Read more about: 
Academic publishing
Research

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Related universities

Reader's comments (4)

#1 Submitted by ... on November 6, 2022 - 7:35am
Blind review needs abolishing so that reviewers are forced to be professional and know that vile and unfounded comments will require them to put their names to them. BMJ have non blind review which has resulted in authors knowing the qualifications and name of those blocking their papers and has led to reviewers being professional and sticking to real substantive points.
#2 Submitted by ... on November 6, 2022 - 7:35am
Blind review needs abolishing so that reviewers are forced to be professional and know that vile and unfounded comments will require them to put their names to them. BMJ have non blind review which has resulted in authors knowing the qualifications and name of those blocking their papers and has led to reviewers being professional and sticking to real substantive points.
#3 Submitted by ... on November 6, 2022 - 7:35am
Blind review needs abolishing so that reviewers are forced to be professional and know that vile and unfounded comments will require them to put their names to them. BMJ have non blind review which has resulted in authors knowing the qualifications and name of those blocking their papers and has led to reviewers being professional and sticking to real substantive points.
#4 Submitted by ... on November 6, 2022 - 7:35am
Blind review needs abolishing so that reviewers are forced to be professional and know that vile and unfounded comments will require them to put their names to them. BMJ have non blind review which has resulted in authors knowing the qualifications and name of those blocking their papers and has led to reviewers being professional and sticking to real substantive points.

You might also like

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT