Is Not It Wrong Thing That Elsevier's Some Journals Require Reviewer Set By Us?

[inverse]

elsevier's some journals require us to to arrange some reviewers exceptionally (from out of their editorial board)  

 

and is not it a big failure that they do. because they compromise from the objectivity. 

 

objectivity is badly/negatively  being affected.

 

to be honest ,I would  be quite impolite across them!

 

because they deserve that.

Edited December 26, 2018 by inverse

[inverse]

some of springer's and de gruyter's journals are also containing this specification...

 

but it is really not meaningful in my opinion. because it affects the decision.

[fahrquad]

Is English a second language for you or are you having a stroke?  Assistance is available in either case.

 

https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

Edited February 10, 2019 by fahrquad

[inverse]

 

  Assistance is available 

 

https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

 

I think this generally does not run. 

 

that is why the jounals' names/title commonly does not conform with their scopes.

 

however the thing I stated is quite different than your offer (irrelevant)

Edited February 11, 2019 by inverse

[inverse]

this category journals require authors to suggest reviewers .(in manuscript submission system)

 

and I say that this is meaningless,also causes unobjective (subjective) assessments.

 

as an independent author,I suspect the quality of those papers published in such journals.

Edited February 11, 2019 by inverse

[Pyrotex]

Although the words in your posts are all valid, and can be found in any dictionary,  the manner in which you string words together creates sentences without clear meaning.  Often without any meaning at all. 

The question is:  are you being obscure and muddled by intention;  or by accident?

[inverse]

Although the words in your posts are all valid, and can be found in any dictionary,  the manner in which you string words together creates sentences without clear meaning.  Often without any meaning at all. 

The question is:  are you being obscure and muddled by intention;  or by accident?

Hey, i enjoyed your telling style. :)

 

Yes, i am not native speaker of english.

 

But i will try to clarify where you have not understood if you show it to me.

[inverse]

I often prefer to write very quickly and presumably i am a bit careless one.sorry for this.

[fahrquad]

Try writing in your native language.  If we don't understand it we can always use translation software.

[inverse]

Try writing in your native language.  If we don't understand it we can always use translation software.

 

both of your offers are irrelevant to this thread and/or does not run.

 

we are not interested in your posts.(irrelevant to me)

 

we are dealing with scientific contexts (preferably engineering or applied sciences)

[inverse]

Is English a second language for you or are you having a stroke?  Assistance is available in either case.

 

https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

[inverse]

CLARIFICATION

 

this hread tells these

 

1) we have detected that Elsevier's and Springer's some journals required authors to SUGGEST reviewers.

 

2) we believe that this was illogical because of the fact that Editors and Reviewers should be INDEPENDENT 

 

3) Reviewers should not be dependent to authors. 

 

and in conclusion ;

 

4) we suspect the objectivity of the articles published in these journals.

 

I think the paragraph is clear to understand the message. but if you did not understand well ,we can reclarify .

[exchemist]

CLARIFICATION

 

this hread tells these

 

1) we have detected that Elsevier's and Springer's some journals required authors to SUGGEST reviewers.

 

2) we believe that this was illogical because of the fact that Editors and Reviewers should be INDEPENDENT 

 

3) Reviewers should not be dependent to authors. 

 

and in conclusion ;

 

4) we suspect the objectivity of the articles published in these journals.

 

I think the paragraph is clear to understand the message. but if you did not understand well ,we can reclarify .

Thank you. I think I now understand the nature of your complaint. However I have looked at Elsevier's system and so far as I can see they retain the choice of who the reviewers will be.  It is true that they can invite authors to suggest reviewers, but that does not mean they will use them.

 

Can you provide a link to the source of your information? I wonder if you may have misread it.   

[inverse]

Thank you. I think I now understand the nature of your complaint. However I have looked at Elsevier's system and so far as I can see they retain the choice of who the reviewers will be.  It is true that they can invite authors to suggest reviewers, but that does not mean they will use them.

 

Can you provide a link to the source of your information? I wonder if you may have misread it.

Thank you for your message. We could not find the direct explanation but some of springers journals (most of them are not sci-indexed) explain only that they use collaborative system and that they invite authors to suggest reviewers.

 

To make invitation is not the exact problem while it is not wholly innocent. But that selection is mandatory for any submission.

 

Currently, we do not submit any of our manuscript to such journals. (we clearly imply or claim that objectivity is being affected in this way and it should be avoided!)

 

I tried to upload one of the picture extracted from editorial manager but could not succeed.

Edited February 12, 2019 by inverse

[exchemist]

Thank you for your message. We could not find the direct explanation but some of springers journals (most of them are not sci-indexed) exlain only that they only use collaborative system and that they invite authors to suggest reviewers.

 

To make invitation is the exact problem while it is not wholly innocent. But that selection is mandatory for any submission.

 

Currrntly, we do not submit any of our manuscript such journals. (we clearly imply or claim that objectivity is being affected in this way and it should be avoided!)

 

I tried to appload one of the picture extracted from editorial manager but could not succeed.

I think you worry too much. I see nothing wrong in inviting authors to suggest possible reviewers. It may help the editor to get in touch with someone who the authors considers would understand how to review the subject in question. They might consult them, maybe use one out of several reviewers, or not use them at all.

 

Elsevier and Springer are very reputable scientific publishers. I think it unlikely they would risk their brand reputation by allowing authors to nominate, as opposed to suggest, reviewers. If you have any doubts I think you ought to write to them, asking for clarification of their policy, rather than just assuming they are untrustworthy. I feel sure they will be able to set your mind at rest.  

Edited February 12, 2019 by exchemist

[inverse]

" I see nothing wrong in inviting authors to suggest possible reviewers." I

I think it is quite problem!

 

let see this situation/scene:

 

1) I select one professor who is my dude.(but assume that I am not a successfull author)

2) That journal accepts that reviewer

3) reviewer accepts my manuscript.

 

Result:

scientific documentation (objectivity and quality have been affected (negatively)

 

 

 

   It may help the editor to get in touch with someone who the authors considers would understand how to review the subject in question. They might consult them, maybe use one out of several reviewers, or not use them at all.   

 

I understand ,but to make that selection mandatory is quite problem.

but again ,I think even though it was optional,it would again cause some matters as in relevance of statement given above 

 

 

 

 

 Elsevier and Springer are very reputable scientific publishers

 

yes,this is known information. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by inverse

[inverse]

I always select "double blind" review if possible.

single blind review (seems like that) is another problematic issue. 

 

....

Edited February 12, 2019 by inverse