Tuesday, November 28, 2006

9 1/2 weeks

Seems to be how long it takes to not get a response from GRL these days.

Yes, that means I'm still awaiting any sort of response regarding this manuscript which was submitted way back in September. For those who think I'm a bit trigger-happy to get upset about such an apparently modest time interval, note that GRL is specifically supposed to be a rapid turnover journal for short letters - a standard review request allows 2 weeks, which should give a reasonable expectation of a response in about 3 weeks including editorial handling etc.

Moreover, it's not just the rather extraordinary time delay that I'm pissed off with, but the extremely unprofessional way in which GRL seem to have handled it. Firstly, I was amazed to find out that the manuscript had been assigned to an editor who just happens to be a close colleague of Dave Frame and recent co-author with Myles Allen on a paper concerning methods for probabilistic estimation. Secondly, it's astonishing that this person didn't seem to think it was inappropriate to take on this task. And thirdly, the Chief Editor ignored my request that he should be replaced by someone without such an obvious conflict of interest. That's despite GRL actually having a box on their submission form for such editorial conflicts of interests to be mentioned - which I didn't fill in at the time of submission, as this person is nowhere listed as an editor on the GRL website (or anywhere else on the web, such as his own web-page) and I therefore had no possible reason to suspect that he, or anyone else with such an obvious relationship with those researchers who I am most directly criticising, could potentially be offered the task.

According to GRL's on-line manuscript tracking system, the reviews were all in a full 2 weeks ago and since that time have been sitting on the editor's desk waiting for him to make a decision. There has been no reply yet to the email I sent to GRL last week enquiring as to his health...

Update

No sooner blogged than I get an email from GRL...It has eventually been passed over to the Chief Editor for the decision. I'd have been happier if this had happened in advance of the (potentially critical) choicee of referees.

9 comments:

EliRabett said...

Letter journals seem to be all like this. We waited on APL for a year and they finally rejected the letter which, IMHO they were full of it. Wait till I become editor.

Steve Bloom said...

Re the update: At least now you know they read your blog.

Anonymous said...

>At least now you know they read your blog

which is most likely a bad thing! ;-)

James Annan said...

At least now you know they read your blog.

:-)

If only...

Belette said...

If you have evidence of research grants turned down because of a clash with the prevailing consensus, of instances where journals or conference organisers or consensus bodies have rejected "inconvenient" findings, please send it to us; my email address is at the bottom of this article.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196804.stm

James Annan said...

Interesting, thanks. I might bother to write him an email.

BTW in the light of Stern, I would be interested to hear if you still think it's reasonable to make claims such as the following:

"Gavin thinks your results are barely of interest because everyone knows this anyway"?

and if so, what that says about the motivation and honesty of those scientists who advised Stern...

Anonymous said...

It seems to be a convenient way to whinge about not getting published or grants -- claim it's a vast conspiracy against you! Of course nobody has the sense to admit that perhaps the paper/grant/etc was just not good.

Ironically, you'd end up with plenty of support from the Idsos & McIntyres & Michaels & Singers (who have more money & influence with powerbrokers than any mythical "network" of Mann et al)

EliRabett said...

Silly, Mann is isolated, that's why you call it the Isle of Mann. Tax free tho......

Belette said...

You mean the claim I made, or the one I'm reporting Gavin as making? Well it depends on who you mean by everyone. Clearly *not* the people advising Stern, but I don't know who they are.

People seem to focus on the discount rate stuff in Stern. Since S is mostly economics, and since this appears to be a fatal flaw, the science bit seems to be largely ignored.