Peer review sucks?

[Woodchopper]

I had one addressed to "Dear Prof. Dr. <institutional e-mail address>", which gave that nice personal touch.

On another note, I just had a case where peer review saved the day as a vigilant reviewer noticed that a submitted paper was blatantly plagiarised. It was paraphrased sufficiently that the plagiarism check didn't flag it and I as deputy editor wasn't aware of the paper that had been plagiarised.

There must be loads of these that get through the net, though.

Yes, as a peer reviewer I recently flagged a submission that was a paragraph by paragraph rewrite of an already published article. The text was presumably different enough that it got through the journal's filter. Me spotting it was mostly due to luck, so I agree that lots of others will get through.

If it was double-blinded, do you know that the submission wasn't from the person who wrote the original article, trying to get it published in a different publication?

That’s possible but self-plagiarism is also unprofessional. Journals require a statement from the author that they’ve submitted original work.

[shpalman]

Yes, as a peer reviewer I recently flagged a submission that was a paragraph by paragraph rewrite of an already published article. The text was presumably different enough that it got through the journal's filter. Me spotting it was mostly due to luck, so I agree that lots of others will get through.

If it was double-blinded, do you know that the submission wasn't from the person who wrote the original article, trying to get it published in a different publication?

That’s possible but self-plagiarism is also unprofessional. Journals require a statement from the author that they’ve submitted original work.

I called that out once, in an author who had the habit of writing a "new" article which was 80% of a previous article plus maybe one new thing, and who also tended to have nice physical results but no clue what he was doing, and his reply was "well it's my article so I have the copyright on it, what's the problem?".

[wilsontown]

If it was double-blinded, do you know that the submission wasn't from the person who wrote the original article, trying to get it published in a different publication?

That’s possible but self-plagiarism is also unprofessional. Journals require a statement from the author that they’ve submitted original work.

I called that out once, in an author who had the habit of writing a "new" article which was 80% of a previous article plus maybe one new thing, and who also tended to have nice physical results but no clue what he was doing, and his reply was "well it's my article so I have the copyright on it, what's the problem?".

The author would not necessarily have the copyright anyway, but of course that's a side issue.

[Chris Preston]

If it was double-blinded, do you know that the submission wasn't from the person who wrote the original article, trying to get it published in a different publication?

That’s possible but self-plagiarism is also unprofessional. Journals require a statement from the author that they’ve submitted original work.

I called that out once, in an author who had the habit of writing a "new" article which was 80% of a previous article plus maybe one new thing, and who also tended to have nice physical results but no clue what he was doing, and his reply was "well it's my article so I have the copyright on it, what's the problem?".

It is called recycling. Most journals I deal with count recycling as academic dishonesty.

[dyqik]

That’s possible but self-plagiarism is also unprofessional. Journals require a statement from the author that they’ve submitted original work.

I called that out once, in an author who had the habit of writing a "new" article which was 80% of a previous article plus maybe one new thing, and who also tended to have nice physical results but no clue what he was doing, and his reply was "well it's my article so I have the copyright on it, what's the problem?".

It is called recycling. Most journals I deal with count recycling as academic dishonesty.

Usually you can just recommend rejection as it being insufficiently novel, or recommend it go into a short form "letters" publication instead.

Although in astrophysics, ApJ Letters is seen as higher impact than ApJ. This is because high impact papers get into ApJ Letters despite being way over the page limit.

[monkey]

I called that out once, in an author who had the habit of writing a "new" article which was 80% of a previous article plus maybe one new thing, and who also tended to have nice physical results but no clue what he was doing, and his reply was "well it's my article so I have the copyright on it, what's the problem?".

It is called recycling. Most journals I deal with count recycling as academic dishonesty.

Usually you can just recommend rejection as it being insufficiently novel, or recommend it go into a short form "letters" publication instead.

Although in astrophysics, ApJ Letters is seen as higher impact than ApJ. This is because high impact papers get into ApJ Letters despite being way over the page limit.

Talking of letters and novelty, there was a guy in my field who (as last author) would publish in the letters journal, then publish the same work again in a longer form with a few extra results, but nothing really making it significantly different. Always wondered how he kept getting away with it. Never noticed his students/postdocs doing the same after they became former students/postdocs, they just publish in the longer form.

(I was at a conference once and he didn't wash his hands after taking a piss too).

[Allo V Psycho]

Here's a nice example of the aggressive approach:

"Dear (not my name in any case)

The following message was sent by the journal on the date of 10 March 2025.

You failed to receive this message, or intentionally you are not responding (sorry if I am wrong).

Kindly request your immediate attention to this email and respond within 24 hours to end it smoothly

We anticipate your prompt reply to prevent reminders"
.

[dyqik]

Here's a nice example of the aggressive approach:

"Dear (not my name in any case)

The following message was sent by the journal on the date of 10 March 2025.

You failed to receive this message, or intentionally you are not responding (sorry if I am wrong).

Kindly request your immediate attention to this email and respond within 24 hours to end it smoothly

We anticipate your prompt reply to prevent reminders"
.

I anticipate hitting the "block and report spam" button to prevent reminders.