Should academic journals carefully select suitable subject experts to review manuscripts submitted for review? Opinion is divided on the subject
Keith S. Taber
Edmund: I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.
Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.
Edmund: Oh, really?
Rum: Yahs. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't. *
Dear JAMME/AMSE International OCSCO World Press
Thank you for your invitation (26th April 2021, repeated 27th April 2021, and repeated again 28th April 2021), the "Notification from the ICI Publishers Panel system", to review a manuscript with the title:
"Identification of Complex Product Systems R&D Supply Chain Critical Success Factors Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (Case Study: Aviation Industries Organization, Iran)"
Accepting a review assignment without an abstract
I see you wish me to "kindly critically evaluate this manuscript via ICI Publishers Panel" – which seems to be a portal for journals without their own on-line system for handling manuscript submissions and reviewing.
I note that you have not sent me an abstract, and that the only way I can access this manuscript is by going to the panel website and registering with the system.
Two opinions on identifying experts
I can only guess why you think I might know something about product systems R&D supply chains, and/or have some expertise in structural modelling, and/or have specialist knowledge of the aviation industry. It seems 'opinion is divided on the subject' of how journals should identify and assign reviewers. The old school approach involves keeping a database of experts in a field, with details of their research interests and specialist areas of knowledge. I assume that is not how International OCSCO World Press chooses to operate as if you checked out potential reviewers to find our their areas of expertise, then you would not be bothering me with this inappropriately directed request.
One idea that crosses my mind is perhaps you operate on a familiar scamming mode of sending out multiple invitations to lists of email addresses to entice some arbitrary respondents (academics, and perhaps arbitrary people with email) to respond by signing up for your panel so you have their information. Generally such scams work by sending out enough copies of an email that simply by chance a few respondents find the invitation is actually relevant to their work and understandably assume they are being invited in a principled way (that is, in the way competent and honest publishers work). Your approach would seem to be either a very incompetent or a very dishonest way of working – either way you will appreciate why I decline to join your panel.
The journal office does not wish to be contacted
I notice that your email is "noreply@indexcopernicus.com" so I imagine you are not going to bother to read this reply.** (Although if I post it online, you may come across it – or at least others searching for information about your requests might).
That would explain the repeated requests, as you would not have noticed my auto-response suggesting that "Invitations to write, edit, chair, talk, lecture, review, evaluate, collaborate, etc., in areas that are clearly well outside my own limited areas of academic expertise (such as can be determined from the most cursory web search) will be treated as spam – regardless of any attempts to praise my non-existent contributions in these areas (e.g., https://science-education-research.com/keith-s-taber-acclaimed-polymath-apparently/)". It also means you likely did not notice that "If you send out your invitations from an email address that rejects responses or is not monitored for replies, and so miss this response, I will assume that you appreciate why I would choose to treat any follow-up messages accordingly".
Do submitting authors appreciate how the journal works?
I wonder if there really is a paper called "Identification of Complex Product Systems R&D Supply Chain Critical Success Factors Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (Case Study: Aviation Industries Organization, Iran)" which has been submitted somewhere for review. Perhaps to the 'Archives of Materials Science and Engineering' or the 'Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering' (i.e., JAMME /AMSE ?) I must admit to never having previously heard of these journals, although clearly you do not feel that disqualifies me as being a suitable expert to evaluate work in them.
If so, I wonder if the author(s) of "Identification of Complex Product Systems R&D Supply Chain Critical Success Factors…" are aware that they have sent their work to a publisher that has decided not to adopt the traditional approach associated with high status journals of taking the time to identify referees with genuine expertise related to the submitted manuscript?
[Read about 'peer review' – the system used by academic journals to evaluate submissions]
[Read about:'Journals and poor academic practice']
* 'Potato' episode from Blackadder II (BBC Comedy show), written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton
** The only reponses to my reply so far have been two further repeats of the original invitation sent the following day (29/04/2021) and 04/05/2021.
