Re: editors and journalsTo: Multiple recipients of list <pkt@csf.colorado.edu> re: editors and journals

[(Peter Kriesler) <P.Kriesler@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As academics, we teach and research. We publish the results of our research
in a variety of academic journals. Since our scholarly reputations and
careers depend upon these publications, we like to believe in the integrity
of the process by which our efforts eventually make it into print. So we
maintain our faith that, in general, the journal editors and referees
intrinsic to this process do a professional job.

However, when an editor breaks faith and noticeably deviates from accepted
behaviour, it it necessary to make his or her actions public knowledge. If
the editor refuses to maintain standards, then only public censure can
assure that such behaviour won't be repeated.

The problem at hand is, when is a definite acceptance of an article not a
definite acceptance. Apparantly at least one editor thinks that such a
decision involving breach of contract and damage to an author's reputation
is entirely up to his discretion as editor.

These are the facts in the case:

On 23 June 1994 I received the following fax from Victor Mok, editor of The
Journal of Economic Methodology:

Dear Professor Freedman

     I am glad to inform you that your article "Animal spirits in his soup:
a look at the methodology and rhetoric of the General Theory" has received
favorable comments from our referees. They both recommend publication with
minor revisions. One remarks "the author should delete footnote 16 or at
least delete the graduitous (sic) criticism of Elster (1989)". The other
has more detailed suggestions which I enclose.

    Due to the pressure of time, I very much hope that you can send me the
revised version in two weeks so that it can appear in the December issue. I
am also enclosing a copy of our Notes for contributors. Please work you
(sic) revised version accordingly as it helps editing and proof-reading.

    Happy writing and looking forward to hearing from you.

    Yours sincerely,
          Victor Mok
          Executive Editor


Perhaps I am naive, but I took this to mean that if I went ahead and made
the minor revisions suggested by one of the referees and revised one
footnote, that the article would be published in the December issue.

This request came at a very bad time for me. My wife that week had just
given birth to twins and I was spending a good deal of my time at the
hospital. It was also the end of the term and finals had to be marked. In
addition I had continuing teaching obligations at the Business School
attached to my University. Fortunately, since the required revisions were't
onerous, by pushing myself, I was able to complete all the suggested
revisions in the time required.

If the editor had any question as to whether I had complied with the
referee, he could have sent it back to the original referee. I had in fact
complied with the eight minor revisions requested.

What happened instead? As far as I can make out from Victor Mok's
communication, despite very favourable comments from the original referees
(unqualified recommendations to publish) there was divided opinion on the
editorial board after the revision was received. His response was to send
the article out to two completely different referees (thus totally ignoring
the first two). Based on the subsequent unfavourable reports from those two
new referees, he then wrote me in a letter dated October 15, 1994 that my
article was now unaccepted, completely discounting the unqualified
acceptance from the first two referees. In subsequent communication with
him, Victor Mok refused to admit that his original urgent fax was in any
way an acceptance of the article.

The issue here isn't the quality of the article but rather the integrity of
the process. Should an editor be permitted to change his or her mind after
a definite commitment has been made? The original fax was not conditional.
The only conditionality was that I send back a revised copy in two weeks in
order to make the December issue. There is the implied conditionality that
I would make the required revisions, but this I did in fact do. If at any
time prior to this fax, the editor had doubts about the article and/or
about the original referees' reports, he should have sent it out to
additional referees before sending me that original fax. (If he had doubts
at the time, why the urgency of sending me a fax rather than a letter? And
why state a particular issue?) He couldn't have expected the revised
version to be much different than the original since the requested
revisions were all minor. Once that sort of acceptance is made, I would
think that it is too late to have the sort of second thoughts that this
editor had. At that point it involves a breach of faith with the author of
the article.

As a result, I've had to remove the article from my C.V. Given the original
fax, I don't think I was precipitous to list the article as forthcoming.
This of course makes me look either extremely foolish or extremely devious.
As the situation stands now, I've had to pay the full cost of the editor's
change of heart. I can only think that if there is no opportunity cost
involved in indulging in such behaviour, it will only be encouraged. For
this reason, I have decided to make this matter public.

I would appreciate any comments. In fact I would encourage a discussion ot
the matter on this network.

Craig Freedman
School of Economics
University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW 2052
Australia

E-Mail:C.Freedman@xxxxxxxxxxx