Pernicious publication practices
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
Abstract
Although apparently approving of the peer-review system in general, university professors answering a mail questionnaire were often critical of specific features. In the peer review of their latest revised and published article, 76% encountered pressure to conform to the strictly subjective preferences of the reviewers, 73% encountered false criticisms (and 8% made changes in the article to conform to reviewers' comments they knew to be wrong), 67% encountered inferior expertise, 60% encountered concentration upon trivia, 43% encountered treatment by referees as inferior, and 40% encountered careless reading by referees. At some time in their general experience with the peer-review system, 65% believed that referees' comments were contrived to impress the editor, 53% felt that the editor regarded their knowledge and opinion about the reported research as less important than that of the referees, 44% felt they were being treated like a supplicant, and 47% accepted a referee's suggestion against their better judgment.