Do We Have Rights As Authors, To Make Complaint About "unethic" Journal Editors?

[inverse]

I wonder , as authors ;whether we have rights to make complaints.(if you state somewhere, specify please where)

 

I have met a very rude editor (sure)

 

note please,now under this thread we only search about ethical issues/rights & permissions (not the correctness and/or the importance of any scientific material & personality)

Edited November 16, 2019 by inverse

[exchemist]

I wonder , as authors ;whether we have rights to make complaints.(if you state somewhere, specify please where)

 

I have met a very rude editor (sure)

 

note please,now under this thread we only search about ethical issues/rights & permissions (not the correctness and/or the importance of any scientific material & personality)

Still whining about being hard done by, I see. 

 

It obviously never occurs to you that the fault may be with you, rather than everybody you come into contact with.  

[GAHD]

The only rights you have is the right to vote with your feet, and your wallet. ;)

Unless you're in a contractual NDA/Exclusivity situation.

[inverse]

The only rights you have is the right to vote with your feet, and your wallet. ;)

 

 

if I understood correctly,this idea should be inconvenient way or definitely "absence" in the scientific manner.

because, everything does not consist of "money". I am sure that if we believe and act in such a way,then this will cause absence as well as lack of quality.

but we can see that this happens (unfortunately).

 

anyway,we are checking the procedures only here. if we have any rights,then we would use it (normally).

 

 

 

 

Unless you're in a contractual NDA/Exclusivity situation.

 

not sure really about the nature of this statement.(NDA/Exclusivity?)

what do you mean,could you make more detailed explanation please?

Edited November 19, 2019 by inverse

[inverse]

 a notation:

 

we have made a complaint via e-mail to the senior manager of the journal

but we would remind also here, that we do NOT complain from the rejection of manuscript.

because we are complying ethics.

 

but we really did not enjoy her some wordings (these are not relevant to publication of manuscript,there is no discussion with this).

anyway, the process is progressing.

I am sure that her that wordings were not in compliance of being a "good" scientist.

Edited November 19, 2019 by inverse

[sanctus]

The senior manager f the journal owes you nothing: that is just the harsh truth. Now he/she can decide to reply to you and look into it or can deny doing so or can want to and just postpone it (and then forget). Of course, from marketing perspective it would be great if (s)he replies , but is by no law forced to do so.

[inverse]

The senior manager f the journal owes you nothing: that is just the harsh truth. Now he/she can decide to reply to you and look into it or can deny doing so or can want to and just postpone it (and then forget). Of course, from marketing perspective it would be great if (s)he replies , but is by no law forced to do so.

 

hi sanctus,welcome.

we already always expect almost nothing. but again would learn our rights (what we have and could do)

 

there is one question but really I do not want to write here. if you are willing ,I can consult you.

but this is not directly relevant to this issue (also it is not a problem exacty, only a question or some questions)

 

I enjoy your personality sanctus,so if you are willing to respond in private,I can forward to you.

(hereby withing the content of this post,this thread can be assumed as closed)

 

many thanks

kind regards

Edited November 19, 2019 by inverse

[GAHD]

if I understood correctly,this idea should be inconvenient way or definitely "absence" in the scientific manner.

because, everything does not consist of "money". I am sure that if we believe and act in such a way,then this will cause absence as well as lack of quality.

but we can see that this happens (unfortunately).

 

anyway,we are checking the procedures only here. if we have any rights,then we would use it (normally).

 

 

 

 

not sure really about the nature of this statement.(NDA/Exclusivity?)

what do you mean,could you make more detailed explanation please?

You have no rights to things made by other people. If you bake a cake, does some random passer-by on the street have the right to come put salt in your cake mix?

 

NDA= Non Disclosure Agreement. If you work for a development firm often those are required contracts. Exclusive use of things developed with firm resources. There's usually an exclusive use or non competition clause thrown in there too, where people that quit cannot work in that field and compete for some period of time.

 

You might not LIKE that everything is money, but everything IS money.

[sanctus]

Well, you could always sue the person who put salt in your cake mix.

[fahrquad]

Your sole remedy is to complain to the senior/chief editor, but do not count on anything positive coming out of the exchange.  If you are a regular contributor and routinely have issues with this one editor then consider submitting elsewhere. 

                                                                                                                                                                 :hammer:

[inverse]

Your sole remedy is to complain to the senior/chief editor, but do not count on anything positive coming out of the exchange.  If you are a regular contributor and routinely have issues with this one editor then consider submitting elsewhere. 

                                                                                                                                                                 :hammer:

 

 

we are INDEPENDENT researcher ....

 

lets see indirect result.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rude-paper-reviews-are-pervasive-and-sometimes-harmful-study-finds?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=a61500bdb7-briefing-dy-20191213&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-a61500bdb7-43287125

[GAHD]

we are INDEPENDENT researcher ....

 

lets see indirect result.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rude-paper-reviews-are-pervasive-and-sometimes-harmful-study-finds?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=a61500bdb7-briefing-dy-20191213&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-a61500bdb7-43287125

From what I read, I'm betting almost everyone who got a crappy review message deserved their crappy review message. Too many lazy people treat others as their personal spell check, and quite a few more have some sloppy malformed idea and expect others to pay attention and do all the work for them. We have seen examples of exactly that on these forums quite a few times with the "free energy if you tell me how to ignore entropy" people.

[Vmedvil2]

From what I read, I'm betting almost everyone who got a crappy review message deserved their crappy review message. Too many lazy people treat others as their personal spell check, and quite a few more have some sloppy malformed idea and expect others to pay attention and do all the work for them. We have seen examples of exactly that on these forums quite a few times with the "free energy if you tell me how to ignore entropy" people.

Lol, My stuff was actually accepted but I wasn't willing to pay 1500$ to the journal after peer review to submit the article so the jokes on them(https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1751-8121 and https://jvi.asm.org/). Basically if you are someone I have said was a "Crank" you have like a zero percent chance of being accepted by a real journal. Basically it comes down to this, I know I am right, the journal agrees that I am right, why do I need to publish the article then? I always get email invitations to submit articles, that's how you know people want you to submit your work when they come to you. So get off that crank crack and stop submitting bogus science and you will be on that side of it, where you have people that "Want" your article yet you don't want to submit them because of the value of them to you personally and the financial loss. The First time a publisher offers to publish my works for "Free" I will submit a series of 50 articles to that journal.

 

 

You think I am joking but I am not, Proof

 

Secondary Proof

 

Third Proof

Edited December 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[GAHD]

Predatory spam isn't prof vic, but good on ya?

[Vmedvil2]

Predatory spam isn't prof vic, but good on ya?

It's actually quite annoying but I get these all the time man, but someday there will be a paper titled Retroviral Engineering and Synthetic Multivalent Vectors when I get around to it.

Edited December 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[inverse]

From what I read, I'm betting almost everyone who got a crappy review message deserved their crappy review message. Too many lazy people treat others as their personal spell check, and quite a few more have some sloppy malformed idea and expect others to pay attention and do all the work for them. We have seen examples of exactly that on these forums quite a few times with the "free energy if you tell me how to ignore entropy" people.

see more closely please!

 

look at the figure..

 

I think this peer review system should collapse in next few decades..

https://peerj.com/articles/8247/?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=a61500bdb7-briefing-dy-20191213&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-a61500bdb7-43287125

[inverse]

Lol, My stuff was actually accepted but I wasn't willing to pay 1500$ to the journal after peer review to submit the article so the jokes on them(https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1751-8121 and https://jvi.asm.org/). Basically if you are someone I have said was a "Crank" you have like a zero percent chance of being accepted by a real journal. Basically it comes down to this, I know I am right, the journal agrees that I am right, why do I need to publish the article then? I always get email invitations to submit articles, that's how you know people want you to submit your work when they come to you. So get off that crank crack and stop submitting bogus science and you will be on that side of it, where you have people that "Want" your article yet you don't want to submit them because of the value of them to you personally and the financial loss. The First time a publisher offers to publish my works for "Free" I will submit a series of 50 articles to that journal.

 

 

You think I am joking but I am not, Proof

 

Secondary Proof

 

Third Proof

most of non-ideal scientists (I call them as scientist but not all of them exactly...) believe so.

 

but it is not realistic to believe that it would be just and worthy method to cite only most cited articles. not at all.

 

teherefore,I consider most of theoricians/professors as non-ideal,sure!.