Overly.Honest.Editor

Editor Cat-Zhang faces yet another #retraction of a paper whose authors proclaim that since it originally passed peer review, it means it's okay and not their fault at the same time #ScientificPublishing #ResearchIntegrity

So, @jama.com says it will not #retract paper that is wrong unless all authors agree #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing No skin in the game, nor do I know if the paper is/isn't valid. But the argument used here is simply wrong viz. COPE guidelines... retractionwatch.com/2026/08/13/j...

There is a separate circle in Hell for people who email editors with request for updates/info on their papers and include the title/tracking number/any other identifiers as a *screenshot* #OverlyHonestEditor #AcademicSky

Betteridge's law of headlines and all that #ArtificialIntelligence #AcademicSky though in AI's defence... arxiv.org/abs/2607.27191

An unsolicited editorial opinion: if as an author you want to show you "have respect for editors and completely understand demands associated with managing peer review process", don't use ChatGPT to write your emails for you #OverlyHonestEditor #ScientificPublishing

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

Let me finish by saying that behind the story of evolution of review is a much more interesting story of evolution of editing in the last decade. But the margin on this post is too small to contain it. #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview #OverlyHonestEditor /fin

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

But that one is very costly. But also would come with caveats that people to be professionalised often don't realise. / bsky.app/profile/edit...

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

Desk rejects also went up since 2018 by 10%. This is absolute terms will be much more. That might and likely is driven by two factors: integrity screenings but also editors being much more cut-throat triaging, simply due to lack of time. /

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

Affiliate search has only 17% accept to review rate & being over 90% of invites it's not difficult to see why we need nearly 5 of those to get one report. Some locations are more work-starved than others, your reviewer is twice as likely to be based in China as they are in UK or US. /

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

We likely send more invites to people who 10-20 years ago would be considered too junior to serve in this role. How do we know that? Affiliate search (essentially cold call approach based on info from indexing databases) went up from just over 50% three years ago to over 90% in 2025. /

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

While the pool may have have grown, the report says, in surprise to noone, that it takes more effort to secure reviews. Publons 2018 analysis quoted the oft repeated figure that you need to send 2.4 invites to secure one report (up from 1.9 in 2013). Well, this number is now 4.5! /

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

The headline goes contrary to common narratives (though Editor Cat-mondo is skeptical): "The system is absorbing pressure. Whether it can keep doing so is a different question." #PeerReview #ScientificPublishing /

If you're dying with anxiety because the status of your paper has not changed from "under review" for weeks, you may want to read the Future of Peer Review report from Silverchair that came out recently and replaced the outdated Publons report from 2018... #ScientificPublishing #PeerReview /

So, Editor Cat-fuentes is all about putting as much info as possible in the manuscript file, but can we perhaps agree that a Word file (as a main MS file) which is nearly 1Gb in size may be just a little excessive? #OverlyHonestEditor #InternetProviderSaidNo