Why many editors of Nature have very poor research records?!

Here is my view of a Nature-type editor: <edited>

1. Must be an expert in suggesting ways to improve the science, grammar, persuasiveness and presentation. Research supervision and lecturing skills are a recommendation.

2. Must be interested in a wide field of Science.

3. Must be willing and able to quickly review a new specialist field to get enough background to make a judgement call.

4. Must be able to spot fraud, data fabrication, salami slicing, plagiarism and plain sloppy research.

5. Must be good with office work and follow-ups. <edited>

As you might expect, not many people will qualify. Readers of Science rather that writers of Science will apply for the job. Doers of Science want to continue doing.

Thanks Ian. My question is about the editors not the reviewers.

On what basis did you identify their published papers? ORCID and Research Gate are platforms that not all researchers frequently update. It will pay to conduct an extensive research to back your argument.

I used Scopus and Web of Knowledge

Alhassan Abdullah Thanks. I have adjusted my answer accordingly.

Khalid: "Many of them has no specialized scientific peer-reviewed publications of their own" - maybe they have scientifically important, valuable not censored (non "peer"-reviewed) publications?

Hi,

Nature today is an umbrella name for many journals in many science areas and sub fields. An journal editor must not be an exceptional scientist, but he has to know all the research aspects of his field, and be a good organizer. Actually, the high impact scientists do not have the time to be journals' editors, because they have to invest a lot in research.

Hi Avishag Gordon

Thanks for the reply. I'm concerned only about Nature (the main journal) not any other journal under the Springer-Nature group.

Any submitted manuscript to Nature receives a very fast editorial reply which defines the fate of the manuscript. If the editors do not have sufficient experience in their own research field, it could be very risky to trust this editorial decision.

Usually PhD students are required to publish some parts of their thesis before Viva Voce. Many of these editors do not have even a single paper from their PhD theses. I here wonder how someone who had not published a single peer-reviewed specialized article could " know all the research aspects of her/his field "!

As to the organization of the editorial process, from my experience, editorial assistants and publishing editors undertake this responsibility very well.

High-impact scientists are editors in many journals, if you just check the profile of editorial board members of any specialized journal (example Physical Review, Physics letters...) you can see that all members have very good research profiles.

In my estimation, there is no way to trust that the editorial decisions of Nature journal reflects the standard of research in respective field. Nature promotes itself as the leading publication in natural science, biology, physics and chemistry. Nevertheless, I think this reputation is not as accurate as it is thought to be.

Hi,

This state of affairs needs some research. The articles that are accepted to Nature should be evaluated, as well as papers that were rejected by the editors of this journal.Experts in various science disciplines could provide their opinion on the published material in this journal.

If the accepted papers are judged to be scientifically sound, then there is no issue. However, it will be good to look into the scientific value of the rejected papers as well in order to draw a meaningful conclusion. Permit me to slightly deviate with this example. I recently submitted a paper to NATURE COMMUNICATIONS. As remarked by @ Khalid M. Saqr the editorial decision was swift. The editor noted that the manuscript is okay and feel it will scale through if sent for review, but decline moving forward with the submission. This makes me feel there could be other reasons why papers are rejected even after being found to be worthwhile as a scientific material.

Hi,

Another possibility why a chief editor need not be himself a researcher is the fact that when he receives papers for publication , he sends them for primary review to one of the journal's editorial board experts who determines if the paper should be sent to reviewers. In this way, the paper is examined first by an expert in the field.

I want to believe it is because some of the journals under nature umbrella do not appoint editors on research-based evidence, which ensures at least the basic review requirements and experiences, but they are appointed based on the academic credentials.

Dear K. M. Saqr,

Thank you for this exposition. The general believe is that Nature represents the highest standard and therefore considered to be the best research publication. It is therefore the desire of many researchers to have at least a publication in nature one day. With your exposition on the research records of some of the Editorial Boards and Reviewers, then it implies that sentiment and not quality is being used. Somebody without a sound track record of research publication cannot effectively review a manuscript for publication in Nature. I suspect that these are the category of reviewers that will make comments that will keep you be wondering if the reviewer has ever publish a work before.

What will happen if we mention their names so that both the Editor Board members and their associated Reviewers are made to defend themselves?

Nature journals function differently to many others with respect to their editorial staff. The editors of Nature are full time administrators - they will make an initial assessment before assigning an article for peer review. Though most of the editors have scientific training it’s just too big a job to be a researcher and editor for a journal like Nature, whereas other journals have editors who are also full time researchers and academics. As such many Nature Editors have stronger backgrounds in publishing than science. The scientific rigour is provided by the peer reviewers. For ‘Nature’ specifically, articles may be sound science but will be rejected if they don’t make a substantial leap forward for a given field. This doesn’t go for all the Springer Nature journals though, e.g. Scientific Reports.

You may find the same phenomena in other journals. In effect, the label 'editor' or chief editor, rather than chief scientist or equivalent tells the story. The chief editor may assess whether the submitted manuscript fits the readership, journal profile, scientific writing standards and style. Next, the editor may select the specialist assistant editor/reviewers. Further, the editor may communicate with the board/publisher where applicable and deal with appeals, letters and the likes. More than once an editor has written to us that our manuscript was not interesting for the readership of the journal. This may also imply the expectation that the article will not be cited at the level the journal strives for.

See the interview with the Nobel laureate Brenner 2014 about the ridiculous set of people acquiring for businesses who have no business to judge many MS.

that apart, I now have documentary records of comments of celebrity academy level referees and editors rejecting 1000 words with no equation MSS written to help them do their jobs, cell separation (seemingly simple, that it ain’t) requiring high school chemistry, undergraduate biochemistry basic knowledge, producing bizarre comments - showing themselves 94-200 years out of date. unaware that more substances gets absorbed at ice, low temperatures, they stick blood on ice or the fridge that produces damaged platelets products. These get adsorbed, contaminating cells, covering them up, ruining cells useless for reliable data.

Sacrificing science to harvest stem cells from cord blood for economy of space, the celebrities (Sir Jonathan Miller’s illiterate ones) put hydroxyethyl starch and dextran to remove red cells quickly- the 10(19) molecules of these large molecules overwhelm and cover up the 10(15) homing and other functional molecules, destroying cells, making adhesion to niche sites difficult 1973,1981,1990,1992,2013,3016 data) and delaying rapid engraftment- great risk of infection for patients, some times life threatening.

Since the prestigious New York blood center started this in 1995 and PNAS published this on the nod without efficient refereeing by a biophysicist academy member, the sheep fashion followers have been using the flawed method of course, the yields of CD34 + cells is only 0.13-0.3% of mononuclear cell, 0.67% from one centre, instead of the ~5% when HESPAN, dextran avoided.

Consequently the cord blood stem cell therapy remains restricted to treating only children.

Thus, bad refereeing biased, a lot of work published on the nod by js such as NEJM, PNAS, NATURE, HEMATOLOGY, TRANSFUSION js seriously flawed.

One CEO of a grant giving body has no clue to judge but has the power to block.

When Edsall was the Ed of PNAS Max Perit’s was afraid to send the ppr to PNAs, contains a critique of Edsall’s work, but went ahead. To Max’s surprise, the ppr was published!

Clear view: unless the highly paid editors supervise their juniors more closely, rejecting MSS they do not understand (nobel prize 2019 winner Ratcliffe’s ppr 27 yrs ago rejected by nature Ed- do not understand), my appeal is to the editors to take greater control, even if it delays ppr- and not take false pride hiding behind

“ oh, we get too many pprs hogwash“ things will not improve. Like the bmj and some other js, publish the subeditors qualifications, experience in the field and reasons why, things won’t improve. Coldspring harbor site will be the answer with the ability to publish rejector’s reason. I think that is enough.

dr Jay Mehrishi PhD (Cambridg,), FRCPath (Fellow Royal College of Pathologist)

University of Cambridge (retired), still writing MSS.

The irony is this NATURE becomes a slogan of real and true research in science.

The NATURE editors are just editor with no choice to follow some highly strict rules and laws of publishing---I don't know where it came from---- & with some big bunch of salaries.

Nature is now a tag or say a medal of honour in science.

For Example; If you publish 1 or 2 paper in Nature then congratulation your grants, proposals etc will be accepted categorically in advance by your government or funding agencies and this case applies to the whole world almost.

So, they are just editors not researchers or scientists or a Nobel laureates.

They have 3-rules I think so far;

1. Is it novel work?

2. Is it written exceptionally?

3. Reviewing criteria----Be careful!!! Depends on their mood.

You can't compare them with scientists this is because they're technicians in writings, management or administration not in science.

Problem many journals preliminary screeners: Basic subjects have become even more important now to apply to clinical medicine, biotechnology.

following

my observations remain: many of the preliminary screeners, and even celebrity editors, reviewers are out of date by 90 years in fields that are of enormous importance to them to judge. To drive a car you have to learn the skill - not important to know how the combustion engine works! Not even in the category- a word to the wise- to appreciate the implications. There are still people under the category of Emperor Jospeh's advisors- "too many notes in Mozart's marriage of Figaro". I now have documentary evidence. We are at war with the coronavirus- the basic laws of physics are being forgotten to deal with interactions.

Hi,

I could be because they are busy editing other scientists' papers, and do not have enough time to write their own.

Avishag Gordon

did not quite follow, guess what you do wish to say!? Physics, mathematics rigorous laws helped win the war. As I said we are at war with the treacherous, spontaneously mutating SARS-Cov-2, rigorous laws of physics DLVO THEORY govern the interactions, one cannot afford to ignore.

do read the Nobel laureate brenner 2014 kings College review “Academia and publishing, editing by people who have no business to judge or the competence to have been killing innovatio.

After all NPG publishing is a business. Science comes next. Better business needs to do some compromise when it comes to science or truth. Many Editors could be failed scientists or who left science out of frustration or lack or loss of interest. Its important to note that a good scientist need not be a good businesswoman/man or administrator or editor. The qualities to survive, make money and gain publicity are more important when finding capable hands to lead a publishing house or to head a journal as an Editor.

Hi folks

Because Nature journal receives a zillion amount of articles each year, the journal needs full time filters rather than editors with a Ph.D. to screen those articles for less than 5% of the submitted articles to go though reviewing processes. In other words, full time editors in such case have no time to do research whatsoever. The background of those editors is not essential for such job. Like those editors have only time to reject the submitted articles no matter how good the articles to keep the journal quota of processing only less than 5% of the submitted articles.

As said above, editors of Nature are full time administrators

THEY MAYBE HAVE A SPECIAL ABILITY TO FIND RIGHT PEOPLE TO REVIEW THE RESEARCH PAPER PUBLISHED IN NATURE。

After more than two years of posting this discussion, has anything changed wrt to publishing in top tier journals?!

Who wants to take part in a next-generation publishing platform that will eradicate bias, accelerate editorial decisions, and give equally motivating incentives to reviewers, editors and authors?

Send me a message if you're interested! The project is still in stealth-mode! ;)

Different people have different jobs

Khalid: How do you imagine such a platform?

Many of them have not published in Nature journals but are asked to review papers submitted to Nature journals.

Dear all

Apologies for not joining this interesting discussion sooner. Thank you, Khalid M. Saqr , for starting it.

As pointed out by Khaled J. Habib and Sanal Madhusudana Girija , these positions are best filled by people who have ability and skills in business and not necessarily eminent scientists.

I have similarly heard criticisms of university chancellors who receive comments that their h index is low. That made me realise it is not so important for their job. People who strive for good Science and discussion here seem to be a different species to those who become editors!

The point recently made by Jianguo Yang is a very good one - highlights abilities required for that job being being a scientist.

Like, the referees of football games have no goals, are they?

As Nature's editorial staff are full-time administrators, obviously they can't research and publish like full-time academicians. I also agree with Prof because different jobs need different skills/specialties and have different KPIs.

You need to consider one important point first, which is the role of this editor. As you know, there are many roles of editors, managing, associate, ..., chief. Have you seen chief editor like what you noted. This will be an issue.

We have very high quality research articles published by them irrespective of their research records.

So, the outcome only matters in my view.

I am agree with Dr nanda's views.

I am agree with Dr nanda's views

Regardless of journal, researchers should present their published work on PodScholars: https://podscholars.com allowing them to discuss as an open communication.

I totally agree with you, about how an Editor decided to accept or reject a paper since he has published only some articles with poor levels!. Unfortunately.

My version is: they are not writers, but readers. Almost full time.

You have very little time left for research when you are full time editing a journal.

It's simple, they failed to find a faculty position.

@ Faming Wang

Maybe you know some cases. In my scientific environment, I am familiar at least 4 journal editors that held 'faculty positions' when taking up a chief-editor position.

I would be interested whether you read my answer to the originate question. And your fact-based opinion on my claim.

looking forward to your response

As editors of Nature and Science, they do not need to have a good publication record, but they have to know the hotspot issues of a scientific field and the broadness of a research. The so-called top journals pursue interesting topics and close attention, and they need more people of a specific field and more diversified people of all disciplines of natural science to read and cite the published papers than any other journals do.

Just want to share a funny story about my friend. He is a postdoc specializing in precision agriculture and remote sensing and he recently submitted a manuscript on his research to Nature Communications. Excited and hopeful, he was eagerly awaiting feedback. However, the manuscript was rejected by an editor whose major is in soil microbial ecology. Can you believe it? Someone who graduated in 2022 from a university ranked around 900 in the world was tasked with making a decision on a manuscript from a completely different research area! Sometimes we can barely understand my colleague's research myself! But it really happened in real world.