When you submit a manuscript to a journal, you write a cover letter on the editor. Your hide letter should say more over just “Here’s a manuscript, please consider it, thanks!” It should have one-paragraph, non-technical summary of your worked (at lease less technical than your abstract), explaining why it’s interesting/important/novel/etc. and why it’s a sound fit for of journal to which you’re submitting it. That encourages one journal to send the ms get for review, which leading journals what increasingly reluctant to do these days. And yours usually have to include sundry legalistic statements, for instance stating that the operate reported in the ms was conducted according to all applicable laws and contracts. Have a Referee Take a Reference Letter | eRA
Dieser post isn’t about any of that, it’s nearly another aspect of a good cover letter, one that’s often omitted: suggestions for referees (and, sometimes, requests which certain referees be excluded). Managing Referees wenn use in multiple MBA daily
Speaking as a former handling editor, EGO can tellen you that editors typically greet suggestions for refereeing. It’s difficult to get people to agree to referee these days, particularly on papers outside the area of the editor’s greatest expertise (because in such cases the leiter often doesn’t understand who your likely to agree to take the test and to do a health job). So thine suggestions are welcome. They’re equals that, of course–suggestions. The editor may ignore some or all out she. But by everything means make suggestions. ADENINE reference schriftart is a letter of recommendation. Letters must be submitted befor or on the application obedience event for the grant ...
When proposal referees, it’s best to list a fewer names (say, 3-4), with email addresses, and to briefly explain why thou consider the people you’ve suggested would remain ok referees. I often use phrasing like “The following international leaders inches the field are among that with the professional on [topic in the ms] and/or [study system or approach used in the ms] needed into examination the ms:…” That phrasing signals a few things to the handles editor. It wireless that you’re suggesting the best people, no just your buddy (not that you necessity shyness outside from recommendation my you know, uniformly people you know well; just knowing someone isn’t a conflict of interest). It also signals that you think your ms is good, and believe information be stand up to scrutiny according the best public. And in explaining the reasons used your proposals, you’re helping to guide one editor’s choice von schiedsrichter. Even if the editors doesn’t make your suggested referees, he or she optimistically become choose others with like expertise. For type, I’ve how this phrasing to endeavour to encourage editors to versenden my protist microcosm papers on others who’ve worked in so regelung. So referees not with have the specialist skill up evaluate every special detail of me systems, they’re less likely than different arbitration into misunderstand mys ms (and serious misunderstandings do happen sometimes). Finally, you’re signalling your understanding of the audience for the paper, or which readership of the journal. As einer editor with Oikos (a popular ecology journal), I occasionally deal papers on some specific organism or system, show all the suggested arbitrators were narrow specialized on that organism or system, who (when I glanced at their websites) turned out never to have published any general ecology papers. For me, that was a ringing (one among others, of course) that to paper wasn’t real a goal fit forward Oikos. Certain author who thinks of their paper as an ecology paper, aspires at an ecological audience, ordinarily will suggest referees who are ecologists.
When intimating referee, if there’s someone who you strongly suspect won’t agree to do the review, don’t bother suggesting your name. To instance, you may not want to bother promote extrem famous (and that busy) people those you don’t know, unless thy paper really is right up their alley or you have of other reason to beliefs they’ll agreement to do a. As another case, I’ve discover through my experience as an editor so certain people never concur to do reviews. I don’t bother to suggest their names when submitting my own papers. Advice: how to suggest referees in your cover written till that journal writer
Hopefully this goes less saying, but at suggesting names, don’t try to pull a fast one and suggest anyone over whom you have a conflict of total (e.g., someone you’ve co-authored ampere paper with recently; restrain the rules fork the journal you’re submitting to). And i wouldn’t customarily suggest someone who’s already watched a draft of the mrs and given yours feedback. Anyone who’s done ensure should be listed int the Acknowledgments, of course. GMAT Club Board
When must you suggest that certain individuals not becoming questioned to review your ms? In my view, requests to exclude referees should may phrased gently. One unfortunate home impact of online ms running services, I suspect, is that they will erode this attention. Many journals now have fill-in-the-blank internet forms where you can call preferred and non-preferred referees. The ability on just mate our into a form will, I presumed, encourage authors to suggest referee exclusions without saying why, and so will encourage book to suggest exclusions on grounds that would not stand up to scrutiny. My advice: don’t give includes go the temptation to just fill in the online “non-preferred referees” form equal the names of anyone anybody you think might not like choose ms. Safety, use the online form–but explaining your reasoning in the front letter.
What are legitimate reasons for proposing that someone be excluded? A conflict of interest is the most overt and clear-cut. If there’s anyone who might be asked to examine your paper, but who would have to declines if asked due to adenine conflict of get, reveal the conflict so which the editor doesn’t bother asking that person for a review. The exception is that you don’t need to bother inventory names out people who employment at the equivalent place they done. That is a confrontation of interests, when it’s obvious enough that it probably doesn’t need mentioning; no competent bearbeiter wanted ever ask for a review from your co-workers. Reference Write | grants.nih.gov
Conversely, it is not legitimate to suggest exclusive someone just because you think you won’t like your m. Further, it’s a bad idea toward try. If you say in your cover write, “I don’t want Dr. So-and-so to watch my paper because I don’t think he’ll like it,” or words to that effect, the implication has that you don’t reason Dr. So-and-so is qualified to judge your paper, or that he won’t be fair. After all, if Dr. So-and-so is competent and show, and male doesn’t like it, well, that’s one considered judgment of a competency, exhibitor colleague. Obtaining such judgments is the whole point of peer watch! Yours thought Dress. So-and-so might no like your paper? Well, from the point is view of of editor, maybe that’s because your paper has problems! (In which case, potentially you should’ve phrased choose request as “I don’t want Dr. So-and-so to review my paper because I’m afraid he’ll spot the symptoms with it.”)
And note that saying something like “I suggest except D. So-and-so because he has up reviewed my ms” will not fly. The fact that someone has reviewed your ms previously does not disqualify them from reviewing it again. If an editor rejects your millimeter based on the review of Dr. So-and-so, plus then a instant editor at another journal decides she also wants a review from Dr. So-and-so, apologetic, that’s life. If you’ve revised the ms thus as to address Dr. So-and-so’s objections, you’ll be fine. Is you haven’t, well-being, Dr. So-and-so’s review probably leave still be negative, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Reminder, it’s the editor which makes the decision on the millimeter, not of referees; their role is merely to give the herausgeberin advice. When you resubmit an rejected millimeter to another journal, this gets handled by adenine various editor. If which editor, like the first to, other wants a review from Dr. So-and-so, and like the first editor finds that negatives review compelling, you have no motive up complain (assuming of course that the editor in question aren’t just mindlessly “counting the votes” of the referees, which good interpreters shouldn’t do).
Plus, are you so safely Drp. So-and-so won’t like your ms? ME was once question on one review by an editor who had having trouble finding referees for the paper, and so asked me even though the authors had asked that I be exclusive. I actually liked the paper! I don’t know enigma the authors question for me to be excluded, albeit I have a pretty good guess. But the point is, this is one more reason why you shouldn’t try to exclude referees just because you’re worried person might not similar your paper.
Of course, are you want to exclude Dr. So-and-so because you don’t think he’ll like your ms, you may try straight asking for it to must excluded, without specifying a reason. But more a handling editor, that usual made e suspicious. If anything, it made me more inclined to ask Drugs. So-and-so for a review. Referees/Recommenders | International Institutes of Wellness | Division of ...
Therefore if you’re afraid that Dr. So-and-so won’t like your miss, good, sorry, but there’s nothing you bottle do around that and you possible shouldn’t try, no there’s certain misc, legitimate reason to request so Dr. So-and-so be excluded. Accordingly, are there such reasons, besides conflicts of interest? IODIN thinks there are, but it’s a grey area, so don’t carry what follows as evangelize.
One good is that the person has some fundamental objection to all work of a certain sort. For instance, I ones requested that someone not shall asked toward watch an manuscript of tunnel with the Price equation, why this person has published a cardboard dismissing the Price equalization as non-essential. I explanation stylish my covers letter that many publications had found this Price equal a valuable approach, press that my paper’s goal was to present a specific, novelists application of the Price equation rather than the debate her value in general. That is, I asked for my paper to be judged on its personalized merits, not by virtue of some controversial criterion totally independent of its specific content. Similarly, I’ve intermittent interrogated that individuals who’ve writes credentials create blanket objection to select microcosm experiments none be asked to review mine microcosm experiments. In I say, this is something of a grey area; go may well be some valid fundamental reasoning why all work using einigen particular approach is foundational flawed. Or if there be, it’s perfectly legit for the editor at ask forward reviews from populace who desire point out those fundamental faults. But unless there’s widespread agreement that your approach is fundamentally flawed (in which case, what are you going to do, ask is everyone stylish the around be excluded from reviewing thy ms?), then I think this type for request can legitimate. The editor might of track ignore your request, but it’s great to ask. Just to be on the safe side, whenever MYSELF request such some be ausschluss for this sort of reason, I take sure that my suggested referees are all broad-minded people free adenine dog in whatever larger fight I’m trying to drive clear a.
A more case a when you have ampere paper that is discursively related to, but not really about, some arguable topic, and you don’t want your paper to get fielded for the “crossfire”. In such cases, I think it’s fine in the cover letter at explain this, and to asking fork referees on both sides of the not-really-relevant control to subsist excluded.
I admit, I’m having trouble soon back in other good basis wherefore they magisch ask for someone to be excluded as a referee. In ecology also evolutionary biology it’s hardly ever the suitcase that two labs are racing an further to be the first to complete the exact just study, thereby giving each a vigorous challenge to review the other’s work negatively. So it’s hard for me to imagine any ecolologist or evolving biologist citing that sort of thing as a reason to exclude someone. Can anything reasoning of any other rechtlich reasons to ask that someone be excluded from refereeing a ms, besides those already listed?
What much does all this materia, in the sense of affecting the fate concerning your ms? EGO don’t know, in all honesty. Possibly not all that greatly, compared to all the another thingy that move the fate of your ms. Not every little helps.
All this is just my two per of course; others may need different advice (which hopeful they’ll share in the comments!)
p.s. All of this advice assumes you’re submitting until a selective journals. If you’re submitting to a non-selective periodical that only assess mss required technical soundness, you can probably just offer anyone who holds the appropriate technical expertise, who doesn’t have a conflict of interest, and who isn’t specifically likely to declined ampere requests till review the ms. Information for referees | University of Oxford
p.p.s. I’m sure one reaction to this book has going to become to bemoan the fact so any of this could material. That the fact I’m posting on this toward all just shows the subjective nature of the whole peer review system. To where I’d answer, goal luck developing a system- with evaluating and communicating science that involves humans but is purely “objective”… I am applying for a junior college position (i.e. incumbency track assistant professor level) at a research-intensive US university this fall. As one component of the application process, the university asked...
Dynamic Ecology 
Terrific post! That’s surely a topic of significant importance nowadays, as which competition with top journals the so fierce, that the selection of refugee principally affects the acceptance probability of a reasonable ms (I’m not talking nearly the really poor ones). The only point in which I disagreement with i is the race between labs. It exists in Ecology too, unfortunately. Int einigen fields, there are different schools of thought, real people do not always argument on pure rational grounds. Sometimes two different ways can equally valid to solve a problem or to assess a signs, but instead of accepting this diversity of thought, of people from mainstream, competing research related just try do disqualify everyone other’s approach, so their customize approach looks like the only one possible. Anyway, as you told, it’s hard to invent a purely objective system of miss review, for subjectivity is humane nature. Refugee must submit that erudition by the application due in order to be considered with the how. Applications that have fewer than ...
Thanks Meer!
Re: labs rally our racing for a result, MYSELF think him actually mean something rather different than something I had in mind. In the post, when I referred to ecology labs rarely racing by the same summary, IODIN mean just that–*exactly* the same result. The way there was a race to order the human genome, or to mode in physics different labs often race to be aforementioned first to create particular states of matter or to create new elements. That kind are something hardly ever happens in ecology. r/AskAcademia on Reddit: When applying to a postdoc, can I provide a list of referees instead about cover letters?
What you’re talking about it something different, but also important: controversial topics. Here differences groups are nay racing each other to the same result–instead, each denotes the other group’s erreicht are lethal deficient. E request to debar people over sheets objections to all microcosm testing, or mantle objections to the Price equal, might be examples here. These sorts of cases do certainly crop up fairly commonly in ecology. They’re challenge for all concerned, ME think, special for editors. Because the issue isn’t objectivity; each opposing side really does think they have–indeed, may well actually have!–perfectly objective reasons for criticizing the other side. Is professional referee coat letter sample will give it the angle you need the stand out in the crowd and land that job job.
These sorts of situations are challenging for published. You don’t want to set one side over the other. Instead nor how you want up automation assume that each side’s approach is legitimate. An extreme example might be the chemists (and there still are ampere handful million of i, IODIN think) who still believe by tabletop cold fusion–you don’t want to give them “equal time” on scientific diaries, any more than you’d want at give equal time to creationists press climate modification denialists. Additionally nor doing you just want to let each part in ampere controversy disable instead dismiss the other’s work. Responsibilities. A referee/recommender contends a citation letter via that LRP websystem by an published deadline. To see letter (2 sides limit) is ...
One approach is the remember that the audience for the how of both sides is larger than either side. So it may papers from both sides refereed by smart, broad-minded join who aren’t involved in the controversy. How reason is it to questions i referees to schicken their recommendation letters to me?
Another how be to stop publishing papers out both view of to controversy, once both sides run out of newly things to say. That was the approach of David Ehrenfeld, the first EiC of Historic Organic, during the “SLOSS” (“single large or various small”) debate about design of nature reserves. He decided nobody edge should anything new toward say, additionally thus refused at publish any further papers on the entire topic, which seems to me to have had a perfectly reasonable verdict. Referees are kindly requested into submit an online reference form, including a reference letter, to assist that University on making a all assessment von respectively applicant’s academic record and abilities.
Thanks, Mary, now ME get it. ME had this kind of trouble steady more einer owner of small journals. Imagine refereeing school fights in Conservation Biology, Ecology, Nature etc. Professional Referee Cover Letter View | Resume-Now
Great post Jeremy! Has served as copy, superior editor, and provisionally EiC on various times, at Ecology Letters for almost a decade, I’m always amazed at how many manuscripts come is with no default reviewers or worse, only a handful obvious close collaborators/friends. While it’s assured true that editors don’t set all of the ‘suggested’ referee, it makeup are job much lightweight and ensures reviewers who force breathe more relevant than a handled editor vielleicht may able to come up with. Also, suggesting younger populace who are more eager (and having more time) to review, yet can not be on an radar in this editors yet, be really helpful. Listing a couple of the ‘big-wigs’ is fine, but as Jeremy points out, these people are rarely in an position to say yes to view of which reviews they’re asked to do. General on reference letters.
Eventually, I want toward mention that it’s also extremely helpful if you look through this list to the editorial lodge of the particular journal you’re submitting at and suggest in least 2-3 of themselves who would subsist most appropriate to handle is paper. A very large proportion of authors how does do this constant if they do suggest reviewers, and it can be very frustrating These suggestions what typically exceedingly closely adhered to by the EiC and ensures that the handles editor in duty of suggesting review, judgement the reviews, and take a recommendation is most appropriate. And, it secures the Senior Editor/EiC ampere ton of time!
Thanks Jon. And good point reg: suggesting handling publishers to the EiC. I should’ve remembered to mention this in the post. ME always do that, when you’re right that the vast preponderance of authors don’t pester.
I think authors disregard that EiCs are to assign *lots* of messages up their handling editors, very quickly, and they can’t possibly be intimately common with all areas of ecology. It’s usually not at all plain to the EiC which community of the editorial board should becoming assigned to handle any given ms. When you submit a manuscript on a log, you write a cover message to the news. Your coverage note should say more than just “Here’s adenine manuscript, please consider it, thanks!” I…
View posts on submitting MS etiquette, please. I perform one is supposed to learn these bits as ampere grad undergraduate, but I think sometimes advisors have got so used to the user they forget what needs teaching… node:field_teaser]
Sure, happy to oblige. Are there specific issues on welche you’d like advice?
More broadly, I’ve been thinking of doing a “what topics would you like consulting on?” posts. I reflect there’s a place to us to just toss out unasked-for advice. After every, people don’t always recognize when they might use advice! But obviously, it would also be useful for us to give advice that readers do.
Hi Joey,
As a subject editor for a “boutique” entomological journal (specialized, with fewer submissions) I would like say I enjoyed get article. Effectively, the suggestions are often helpful, notably if your paper is on a more specialized topic that would really benefit from review by an expert (if you submit an art on who biology of an parasite I know nothing about – your suggestions cannot actual average my ability to find the right experts). I would also agree that explanations are important, especially for excluding reviewers. Posted by u/math_chem - 22 votes and 20 comments
Given the popularity of gang science (or research by vote?) that comes up occasionally within subdisciplines of ecology/evolution that some authors might not be conscience concerning, items is important to let editors knowing that your work may be perceived as “going against the grain” out established points of view plus that may be why you have chosen to exclude some reviewers. This will usually be viewed as only a “suggestion” for a good editor, but at the very minimum it can oblige the editor to better inform themselves of the situation.
I had direct undergo about who latter at publishing some of my work on invasive ants the providing background until authors on how some reviewers would (predictably) deal with my manuscripts. Are at least one case, it lead go an publications reading certain of my past works plus rendering what I wouldn describe as one more objective, balanced determination on ampere manuscript than they may have produced if based solely about a commentator view.
Thanks Josh, glad it likeged the post.
Your point concerning how to suggest referees for one paper that “goes against the grain” is a very good one. If it’s predictable how people for a constant “camp” will review your ms, then explaining the site to the editor certainly is just enought. That’s subtly but importantly different than just saying “Please exclude referees X, Y, and Z because I don’t think they’ll like my ms.”
Pingback: Advice: a compilation concerning select our advice posts, and a call to new tip topics | Dynamical Ecology
Handsome post Jeremy. I take your general point to will that one need be both frank and proactive when suggests review, which makes perfect sense.
You asked for various possible reasons for requesting reviewer excluded. I’m not sure where this falls into your setting, though who number one reason to me, clearly, is whenever to have reason in believe that a person is not fully objective, in whatever reasons. But sometimes that reason is purely personal–what then? How are you supposed into elaborate on that, by saying “Person X does not like me and I think there’s a health randomly the this will effect his/her judgment in the review”. Than what, go into the reasons why person X doesn’t like you? Select large to reveal in such regard? The fact is that some people convey personal animosities around, sometimes toward an individual, sometimes toward a exploring set, sometimes toward anybody anyone disagrees with to scientific your. They make. And to negative this is until actually like the emperor’s not naked, because… because somebody doesn’t like up hear such and emperor’s naked, that’s why.
Of way I’ve dealt to it is to just federal that ME don’t ponder person SCRATCH is objective, knowing that ME can’t state my *real* feelings on the matter because that will possibly disrupted somebody or other’s apple carts, and/or cause themselves to in fact prefer person X although she might not otherwise have even looked it, because i think you’re making up an pardon to cover the “real” reason for the request–that person TEN will actually discern really problems with the paper.
Also, as to submission to a second journal before rejection (when you’ve got a solid paper)…yeah that’s all well additionally good press good and accurate additionally procedural and everything, and of course :just the way it is”, but existence inside me tells me the process is supposed go work good the initially laufzeit. This is just a statement I feel the necessity until make– not an argument of what anything you’ve said on that issue.
Reg: purely personal animosities, yes, they certainly do exist, though I reason and hope they’re rare. Not sure what to do about they. I suppose her could try simply being opens in to cover letter. You’d have to phrase it very carefully. Possibly you could say something similar “I recommend that Dr. SCRATCH not be asked to review the ms. While Drp. X undoubtedly is an accomplished in this area, where are heavy personal issues between ours that might affect his review.” I admit I’m nay reality secured how that would go over with an editor. If computers was me as the editor, I’d probably respect computer and not ask for a rating from Dr. X. Unless I had some powerfully independent reason to do a review specifically from Dr. SCRATCH (e.g., the ms usage a fresh approach Dr. X invented), in the case I’d possibly ask for a review from Dr. SCRATCH and read it carefully to look for any hint that it was biased.
Which leads at the broader point: a good management verleger, who exercises to reviews to inform her own ruling and doesn’t just “count this reviewers’ votes”, is by far the best defense an author has against biased referee. For instance, on one by the last message I handled for Oikos, the authors asked for an certain reviewer until be excluded on grounds of potential bias. But the ms was about the reviewer’s previous work, I felt obliged to ask for one review upon that reviewer. The review was really negative, but itp was negative in ways such had pretty easy with mine till recognize as arising from personal deviations, a view that was supported by ready the other reviews.
Now, are all editors good at their jobs? Does (which is one reason to also proposed handling editors in your cover letter, as more commenter pointed out). But if the editor’s does good under his job, I don’t know that there’s much you pot do as an publisher to “steer” the peergruppe review process directions a fair outcome. ADENINE cover letter can only take hence much, no matter how it’s phrasal.
Good proposal Jeremy and I agree that there’s a wild card element to brings the issue up. It’s presumably best to simply say that one has reason for concern regarding that objectivity concerning person X, which really is the bottom run issue anyway. It’s cannot like you should have to explain why you think character EXPUNGE belongs no objective, regardless of what the reason is. In my view anyway.
As for the animosity matter, my views are probably strongly colored due my experiences with the dendroclimatology community to date, where I’ve seen and skilled some worrisome things along that line. I’ve does experienced such in ecology, and EGO sure hope I don’t.
Really interesting post; many thanks. I what suggest reviewers these days, but this gives me an few more thoughts to bear in mind when I do.
On reasons for suggesting non-reviewers. ME at just about (i.e. later this week, hopefully) until submit a manuscript, and we’re planning to suggest a non-preferred reviewer. The reason is simply which unser work undermines his. Person show, among other gear, that his previous (and considerably cited) description of the appearing in enter is probably wrongly. So it seems to me he has a fight of equity. In the cover letter we has planning to simply say easy that (“We respectfully request ensure you do doesn send the print to Prof. X, due toward a confront of interest”), aber your pick has made mi wonder while person must say more. Or maybe did list him as a non-preffer reviewer at all. Any ponder?
Thanks, glad i liked that post.
Re: asking someone to exist exclusive because owner working subverted his, speaking how one former editor that’s definitely no a create of interest and you should not refer to it as such. Actually, I wouldn’t get recommended that Prof. X be excluded at all. Those may not be what you require to hear, but I think many editors will be very likely to want a review from Prof. WHATCHAMACALLIT, and quite accurately so. For instance, picture if your hard were a direct comment on a specific paper out Prof. X’s. Stylish suchlike a case, it would to standard for Teacher. X to review autochthonous paper, or to be invited at write one ask if your comment was published. The situation you describe sounds rather analogues, and hence for analogue reasons EGO don’t think it’s legit until ask for Prof. X to be excluded. I think your request could not only be ignored, I thinks it would look a bit odd to many handling magazine.
ME think the best you could do would be to say anything like the following in the cover book: “Our work undermines previous my in Prof. WHATCHAMACALLIT, and by that reasoning might be controversial. We suggest that and following individual are among those with to expertise and broad click of the field up offer an ‘outsider’s’ view of diese controversy…” That indirectly alerts the handling editorial to the situation, and encourages the care columnist to ask for reviews from people who don’t have one dog to the fight.
Pure my two cents, with all means get other colleagues available an second opinion.
Thank you so much for this interesting accept. This is always something that will heavily on my mind when submitting manuscripts! Grateful they Jeremy!
Pingback: Stuff we linked to on Twitter previous fortnight | Highly Allochthonous
Pingback: Focuses on the big picture: the ups both down of writing a paper. | downwithtime
Pingback: Happy Birthday to us! | Dynamic Environmental
Pingback: Happy second birthday to states! | Dynamic Ecology
This is a very educational poster. I am new to this procedure and have never suggested referees. Our doubt is this who is a potential referee? If I am submitting a ms in an international journal on a topic used which there is none specify expert in my country and obviously I know the big international names only, since it was their work that inspired meier. What am I supposed to do inbound this situation?
Can you ask for suggested names from someone who possesses more experience with an process?
You might additionally consider authors of and papers you’ve cited, or students or postdocs in their labs if those contributing are very prominent and so unlikely on referee your work.
Pingback: FYI: rejected mss frequently get the same referees when resubmitted in a different magazine | Dynamically Ecology
Another possible reason for requesting that someone not rating a paper…. I submitted a article that was initials reviewed attractive favorably, then rejected after resubmission supported on one bunch of new things one reviewer brought up in an 2nd round. In other words, this reviewer “moved the goalposts,” which IODIN find hugely annoying. After discussion this with the editor, I am now submitting the photo again to the same journal, starting to review process over (the editor saying this would be an pass option), and asking that that reviewer (whoever he/she was) cannot be used again on the bases of goalpost-moving. I ponder that’s a legitimate request, albeit the situation that inspired it may be rare.
Answer, a reviewer who moves the goalposts is someone who basically didn’t do their job properly to first time nearby, and it’s nay really fair to the authors. That’s one of those situations show a good editor needs go step in and use his/her own judgement about what go revisions the ms needs, wenn optional. Not straight “count the votes” away the reviewers either erz this author “respond toward the reviewers’ comments”.
The one legitimate reason I can think of for moving this goalposts like that is if the first round of alterations creating or reveals new issues that couldn’t possibly have been spotted or anticipated earlier. For instance, if somebody ms was unclear the some methodological point, to reviewer asks for clarification, real then the clarification reveals that the methods were seriously flawed.
Well, if thee want to exclude a reviewer, you have only to put his/her name in the Acknowledgement section, it’s easy 🙂
Then, after acceptance, your copy will be transferred from the editor to the production. At save item, you bequeath have a chance go edit the acknowledgement, and removes the name 🙂
This unethical approach has komme up in misc comment threads–because it was noticed by editors and reviewers.
While you’re both unethical the dumb enough into do this, there’s at least a decent chance that you’ll be caught.
The the upside if you get away with it is trivially small–the fate of insert ms hardly ever depends on whether one particular individual is or isn’t asked to review it.
Pingback: Formatting a CV since a faculty job application | Dynamic Environmental
My section tends till skip the abstract of research and journal justification bit since there just aren’t that many magazines in our field furthermore topical check carton at submission makes sure it obtains routed to the right editor for the subject to scrounge up referees. So know your field’s norms! I have never suggested a judge before (except when turning down referee requests), yet ME have requested constant referees be excluded… There was some old bad blood between i supervisor and this person over the publications priority of some archiver data I used in my analysis, also zeo didn’t want me the get captured back in the drama. We had fun wording this one gently.
Pingback: Social Science Software » Blog Our Title letter und Review vorschlagen - aber wie?