Timeline for answer to Reviewing a paper written by an editor of the journal - am I really anonymous? by jakebeal
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2023 at 22:14 | comment | added | jakebeal | @Karl Yeah, that's a heck of a lot more structured than the average journal, where the editing duties are generally carried out by volunteer experts. | |
| Mar 28, 2023 at 22:12 | comment | added | Karl | That is the user role "auditor", which should not be activated for standard chief-editing work. And the system should allow to exclude certain users from using the auditor rule for specific cases. At least that's how processes are designed to be compliant in regulated environments. I'm sure publishing software solutions are not as well structured today. ;) And I know this sounds like a lot of hassle. It is, if the processes are not very well adjusted to the task and specific journal. | |
| Mar 27, 2023 at 23:17 | history | edited | jakebeal | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add link
|
| Mar 27, 2023 at 17:58 | comment | added | jakebeal | @Karl The chief editor often serves as an auditor on the whole process, so they have access to all of the information. | |
| Mar 27, 2023 at 15:00 | comment | added | Karl | One thinks the chief editor user role should not give access to the reviewer selection, but only be able to distribute incoming manuscripts to the associate editors. So unless he assigns himself to the manuscript, the editor-in-chief ought to be completely oblivous as to who did the reviews. Standard GxP procedure to split tasks along user roles instead of users. | |
| Mar 27, 2023 at 14:38 | history | answered | jakebeal | CC BY-SA 4.0 |