Worst Manuscript Review Experience?

[DynamicDidactic]

What has been your worst?

Mine seems like a dozy:

Submitted to a mid-level psych journal, specializing in publishing for AMCs.
January - Submitted
August - forgot about the article, check status, hasn't even been sent out for review. Click the contact link and inquire about status. Get response back from middle man that works for publisher saying they will contact editor.
3 weeks later - email middle man since there is no progress. Middle man forwards email and Cc's editor.
1 week later - I email editor. No response.
1 week later - Editor invites me to review an article, automated message through online portal I respond to editor that I accept (even though that is done through journal online portal) and ask about my manuscript.
2 weeks later - Editor, through template message, says that I no longer need to review manuscript because he already made a decision.

Obviously, at this point I have submitted elsewhere but this is the most unprofessional editing I have ever come across. Not just as a submitter but as a reviewer.

Needed to vent.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

I clicked thinking it was the other way around for reviews. I'll go anyway.

Get asked to review manuscript. Intro seems familiar.
I've read this, I think.
Wait.
I wrote that.
Submission plagiarized about 5 solid pages of one of my papers' intros, replacing words such as changing "correlated with" to "associated with."

It got rejected with a note that they better review what plagiarism means.

 

[WisNeuro]

I submitted an article, now published, in which it was very clear that one of the reviewers had either not fully read, or did not understand the manuscript in any way. The review points were just odd and they wanted clarifications/additions that had absolutely nothing to do with our study. Luckily, the editor just dismissed the review altogether. Hopefully, that person does not get asked to review again.

 

[Swan_13]

The editor of a journal reviewed one paper (not blindly). He said the lit review was "limited" and should therefore be substantiated by citing four or five of his articles---all of which were irrelevant to the research---before being sent out for review. Submitted and accepted elsewhere.

 

[PsyDr]

reviewer demanded a cohens d be reported. This was not the correct method to report effect size.

 

[MCParent]

reviewer demanded a cohens d be reported. This was not the correct method to report effect size.

I got asked to convert correlation coefficients to effect sizes once.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I submitted an article, now published, in which it was very clear that one of the reviewers had either not fully read, or did not understand the manuscript in any way. The review points were just odd and they wanted clarifications/additions that had absolutely nothing to do with our study. Luckily, the editor just dismissed the review altogether. Hopefully, that person does not get asked to review again.

About similar to my worst experience as well. The review wasn't dismissed, but I essentially just replied to most of the concerns by saying, "not related to this paper, but we thank the reviewer for their feedback and will consider it in future work."

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I got asked to convert correlation coefficients to effect sizes once.

Once you get done converting, please also give us a statistic that quantifies the magnitude of the relationship between the two variables.

And show your work.

 

[psych.meout]

I got asked to convert correlation coefficients to effect sizes once.

But, depending on the other data provided, can't correlation coefficients (especially Pearson's r) and coefficient of determination (r^2) be viewed as forms of effect sizes?

 

[MCParent]

But, depending on the other data provided, can't correlation coefficients (especially Pearson's r) and coefficient of determination (r^2) be viewed as forms of effect sizes?

 

[psych.meout]

Ok, that's what i thought, but I wasn't sure if I was missing something.

 

[Justanothergrad]

The editor of a journal reviewed one paper (not blindly). He said the lit review was "limited" and should therefore be substantiated by citing four or five of his articles---all of which were irrelevant to the research---before being sent out for review. Submitted and accepted elsewhere.

Yup. I had the same thing. Editor gave a desk reject and encouraged us to use his personal theory of personality (even gave us 6 references to jump start us) instead of 'our theory' (five factor model) which he didn't think was a strong enough basis for personality before he could 'consider sending it to reviewers'. This is an APA journal.

 

[Swan_13]

Yup. I had the same thing. Editor gave a desk reject and encouraged us to use his personal theory of personality (even gave us 6 references to jump start us) instead of 'our theory' (five factor model) which he didn't think was a strong enough basis for personality before he could 'consider sending it to reviewers'. This is an APA journal.

Ugh, mine was an APA journal, too...

 

[MCParent]

Other fields research this stuff better than psych. It's called "coercive citation" in other fields, referring either to the implication that a reviewer would have a better opinion of the paper if you cite these five papers which all happen to share one author, or the journal editor themself telling you to cite more from it.
Do people get that often? In 40 papers I've experienced that like 2 times. It's typically so blatantly obvious. In one of the instances I returned the revision with a note that the suggested citations were all either tangential to the paper or I am citing newer or better work. That paper got published.

 

[WisNeuro]

Other fields research this stuff better than psych. It's called "coercive citation" in other fields, referring either to the implication that a reviewer would have a better opinion of the paper if you cite these five papers which all happen to share one author, or the journal editor themself telling you to cite more from it.
Do people get that often? In 40 papers I've experienced that like 2 times. It's typically so blatantly obvious. In one of the instances I returned the revision with a note that the suggested citations were all either tangential to the paper or I am citing newer or better work. That paper got published.

I've generally been lucky with suggested citations. In my past two papers, the citations added something I missed in an intro, and an interesting tidbit to add to the discussion.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Other fields research this stuff better than psych. It's called "coercive citation" in other fields, referring either to the implication that a reviewer would have a better opinion of the paper if you cite these five papers which all happen to share one author, or the journal editor themself telling you to cite more from it.
Do people get that often? In 40 papers I've experienced that like 2 times. It's typically so blatantly obvious. In one of the instances I returned the revision with a note that the suggested citations were all either tangential to the paper or I am citing newer or better work. That paper got published.

This is one of the issues with the science of psych that frustrates me to no end. We do such a bad job thinking about how to improve the quality - the push now towards replication is in response to some of this but it does not address the broader issues with which manuscripts get considered or how they are considered. I remember hearing one reviewer comment that having explicit hypotheses/research questions listed out at the end of the present study paragraph made it sound like a dissertation and, as such, less attractive as a publication regardless of the science.

Another one is the grant game. Lilienfeld did a good piece for APS summing up the real challenge that it has for psych science.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

which manuscripts get considered or how they are considered.

This adds to the gap between science and practice. Academia and practicing psychologists tend to have differing views of what is a worthwhile publication. If you do intervention work and wanted to reach the typical clinician you likely wont get tenured. So, you are stuck publishing in "top-tier" journals that only reach like-minded types.

I think every clinical scientist should publish once in a while in a trade periodical. Its a very different type of writing and probably reaches a larger amount of people than the typical psychology journal.

This convo seems to have derailed a bit, which is fine.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Publishing outside of traditional "top-tier" or similar has been an interesting experience. I've written a couple of articles for business publications in the past year or so and it's a completely different animal, though I think it's been a net benefit. Reaching a different audience is good, but it also makes me look at my academic writing in a much different lense.

 

[deleted343839]

When I was an associate editor I once handled a really flagrantly plagiarized manuscript. The evidence was abundant and obvious, but the corresponding author was extremely defensive. He kind of blamed his graduate student in a lukewarm way but never acknowledged any responsibility. It wasn't a terrible experience, just bizarre.

Another time a reviewer pointed out that her own paper was being plagiarized in the manuscript I had asked her to review. And I found myself in the same situation another time, with my own work being plagiarized in the manuscript I was reviewing.

Now I'm paranoid about plagiarism... or am I?

 

[NotTheHoff]

I wrote what I thought was a thorough, tactful review for a manuscript that had some unique data and a story worth telling... but also some major organization issues. Interpretations were also fairly exaggerated relative to what the stats actually suggested.

The entirety of Reviewer 1's review: "Nice manuscript."

The author later submitted a super defensive and pissy response toward my comments, and for each point he/she said something to the effect of, "Reviewer 1 didn't have any problems with that, so why did you?" The response even contended the fact that Reviewer 1 didn't mention any issues with the interpretations was "proof" he/she was interpreting the stats correctly.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I wrote what I thought was a thorough, tactful review for a manuscript that had some unique data and a story worth telling... but also some major organization issues. Interpretations were also fairly exaggerated relative to what the stats actually suggested.

The entirety of Reviewer 1's review: "Nice manuscript."

The author later submitted a super defensive and pissy response toward my comments, and for each point he/she said something to the effect of, "Reviewer 1 didn't have any problems with that, so why did you?" The response even contended the fact that Reviewer 1 didn't mention any issues with the interpretations was "proof" he/she was interpreting the stats correctly.

I've seen similar disparities in one or two instances between my reviews and those of Reviewer 1. Which I guess means I've become the infamous and nefarious Reviewer 2.

 

[psyched2graduate]

Waited 8 months for the review of my resubmission, then over a year and a half for online publication. I expected better from an APA journal...

 

[WisNeuro]

Waited 8 months for the review of my resubmission, then over a year and a half for online publication. I expected better from an APA journal...

Nah, IME APA journals have been the slowest turnaround, I don't expect much from them. I've stayed away after two very lengthy and onerous publication experiences.

 

[MCParent]

Nah, IME APA journals have been the slowest turnaround, I don't expect much from them. I've stayed away after two very lengthy and onerous publication experiences.

I like writing brief reports, but I'm almost never able to keep a ms brief report length after R1 at an APA journal. The amount of reiteration of theory reviewers consistently ask for really annoys me. A project should be theory-based, but I shouldn't have to reexplain the theory for pages every paper.

 

[Dr. Meliodas]

Does anyone here have experience publishing with the journal Interventional Neurology. I have a paper who's status has been "with the editor" for 12 weeks. No change since submission.

 

[psyched2graduate]

Nah, IME APA journals have been the slowest turnaround, I don't expect much from them. I've stayed away after two very lengthy and onerous publication experiences.

Good to know!

 

[Throwawayaccount]

8 months pregnant with 5 manuscripts under review.

(I, too, have found that psychology journals seem to be slower with review than psychiatry journals.)

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Update: it was rejected without review with an apology for the delay. I hadn't officially withdrawn the manuscript online b/c I assumed it was dead.

Well, that was another fun time through the peer review process.