Update April 21st, 2015.
After the set up of this webpage and the preparation of a collective resignation letter signed by more than 150 editors of Scientific Reports, some of the signing editors had a conversation with representatives of the Nature Publishing Groups (NPG) . The discussion was very constructive and on April the 20th, NPG sent an email to the editorial board of Scientific Reports informing that the journal's fast-track trial came to an end (20th April) and the fast-track option is no longer available. NPG also expressed its regret that they hadn’t discussed their plans with the Editorial Board in advance and acknowledged the concerns that had been raised in this web page and the collective resignation letter. The full text of the NPG communication is reported here.
In view of the NPG communications, we consider that the collective resignation letter is withdrawn and we look forward to a constructive dialogue with NPG on how to improve the journal and the peer review process. NPG will resume sending manuscript to all members of the editorial board.
We thanks all the editors who signed the letter and the colleagues who have supported this initiative.
Let's keep working together for a better publishing system!
After the set up of this webpage and the preparation of a collective resignation letter signed by more than 150 editors of Scientific Reports, some of the signing editors had a conversation with representatives of the Nature Publishing Groups (NPG) . The discussion was very constructive and on April the 20th, NPG sent an email to the editorial board of Scientific Reports informing that the journal's fast-track trial came to an end (20th April) and the fast-track option is no longer available. NPG also expressed its regret that they hadn’t discussed their plans with the Editorial Board in advance and acknowledged the concerns that had been raised in this web page and the collective resignation letter. The full text of the NPG communication is reported here.
In view of the NPG communications, we consider that the collective resignation letter is withdrawn and we look forward to a constructive dialogue with NPG on how to improve the journal and the peer review process. NPG will resume sending manuscript to all members of the editorial board.
We thanks all the editors who signed the letter and the colleagues who have supported this initiative.
Let's keep working together for a better publishing system!
We are a group of academic editors very concerned about the possibility of Scientific Reports introducing a fast-track reviewing process for authors who choose to pay to get their paper reviewed in three weeks. After a highly frustrating email exchange with the editorial offices of Scientific Reports, (the most important questions we raised are not even mentioned) we have decided to voice our concerns and opposition with the following letter. We intend to submit this resignation letter to the Nature Publishing Group unless the "pilot" test is put to an end and Scientific Reports will engage in a meaningful discussion about the consequences of such editorial processes.
Scientists member of the editorial board of Scientific Reports can add their signature at the bottom left of this page. If you are a scientists sharing our concerns you can add your name in the support form on the right.
Scientists member of the editorial board of Scientific Reports can add their signature at the bottom left of this page. If you are a scientists sharing our concerns you can add your name in the support form on the right.
To the Publishing Director, Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave Macmillan
Thank you very much for your reply concerning our inquiries about the introduction of the new pay-per-service fast-track submission on Scientific Reports.
Unfortunately, your reply is highly unsatisfactory, as we feel it does not address some of our major concerns. We believe that a number of issues and a lack of transparency are implied by the use of a commercial third party, i.e., Rubriq.
Most importantly, this process is truly threatening scientific and peer-review neutrality. A two-tier system is introduced that will differentiate and amplify the gap between scientist in high-income and low-income countries. It will introduce discrimination among senior and well-funded researchers and junior scientists that have yet to establish themselves and gather adequate funding. It will introduce publishing avenues with different speed, based on dollars, in the scientific competition. As some colleagues have pointed out in the past days, after the threat to “Internet-neutrality” we are now facing the threat to peer-review neutrality.
We are also very concerned about the fact that even though we invest a lot of time and effort into making Scientific Reports a better journal, there was no consultation whatsoever with the handling editors regarding this new initiative. This is unacceptable behavior on the part of the publisher. For all the above reasons, we are resigning from the Editorial Board of Scientific Reports. Our resignation is effective immediately, but we will work with your office to finish all current editorial assignments.
Best regards
Thank you very much for your reply concerning our inquiries about the introduction of the new pay-per-service fast-track submission on Scientific Reports.
Unfortunately, your reply is highly unsatisfactory, as we feel it does not address some of our major concerns. We believe that a number of issues and a lack of transparency are implied by the use of a commercial third party, i.e., Rubriq.
- Who are the peer review coordinators at Rubriq?
- What are their scientific and academic credentials?
- Do they have the necessary expertise to assign reviewers?
- Why is there only internal vetting of peer reviews?
Most importantly, this process is truly threatening scientific and peer-review neutrality. A two-tier system is introduced that will differentiate and amplify the gap between scientist in high-income and low-income countries. It will introduce discrimination among senior and well-funded researchers and junior scientists that have yet to establish themselves and gather adequate funding. It will introduce publishing avenues with different speed, based on dollars, in the scientific competition. As some colleagues have pointed out in the past days, after the threat to “Internet-neutrality” we are now facing the threat to peer-review neutrality.
We are also very concerned about the fact that even though we invest a lot of time and effort into making Scientific Reports a better journal, there was no consultation whatsoever with the handling editors regarding this new initiative. This is unacceptable behavior on the part of the publisher. For all the above reasons, we are resigning from the Editorial Board of Scientific Reports. Our resignation is effective immediately, but we will work with your office to finish all current editorial assignments.
Best regards
Editorial board members signing the letter *
|
Duur Aanen
Derek Abbott Hans-Olov Adami Boris Adryan Shahzada Ahmad Tahsin Akalin Andrey Akimov Khuloud Al-Jamal Andrea Alu David Armstrong Sassan Asgari Hellmut Augustin Jose Luis Balcazar Amitava Banerjee Frederic Bard Renata Basto Marian Bogunya Dirk Brockmann Sue Broughton Glenn Burley Guido Caldarelli Francisco Campos Santiago Canals Federico Canzian Steve Caplan Massimo Cencini Aravinda Chakravarti Nitesh Chawla Haitao Chu Ben Collen Antonio Costa Marcello D'amelio Raissa D'souza Sonia Davila Robertus De Bruin Marcella Diemoz Michael Doebeli Karen Downs Esther Dupont-Versteegden Carmella Evans-Molina Amani Fawzi David Fisman Rita Fuchs Lokensgard Andrea Gabrielli Raul Gainetdinov Lazaros Gallos Alison Galvani Mariano Garcia-Blanco Juan Garrahan |
Sunita Ghosh
Michelle Girvan Gabriela Gomes Stanislav Gorb Stephan Grill Daniel Grimanelli Thilo Gross Zhaoli Guo Maria Hatziapostolou Brian Hendrich Ingunn Holen Richard Houlston Li Yang Hsu Jinsong Huang Mehboob Hussain Seung-Sik Hwang Hanjoong Jo Shahrokh Khanizadeh Ian Kill Gyorgy Korniss Susanne Kramer Boris Kuhlmey Pradeep Kumar Ori Lahav Jon Lane Mikhail Lapine Beth Lazazzera Fumin Lei Dennis Levi Binhua Lin Kui Liu Ke Liu Xiaogang Liu Wenshe Liu Taina Lundell Bixian Mai Supriya Mehta José Fernando Mendes Betty Mohler Elisa Molinari Victor Moreno Yamir Moreno Sarah Murray Maxence Nachury Phillip Newmark Jodi Nunnari Alex O'neill Jorge M. Pacheco Maurizia Palummo |
Andrew Pelling
Veronique Pepin Enrico Petretto Jose J. Ramasco Udaykumar Ranga Cynthia Reichhardt Isidore Rigoutsos Adam Roberts Liane Rossi Chetana Sachidanandan Anxo Sánchez Francisco Santos Stefano Sanvito Gopal Sapkota Antje Schwalb Rakefet Schwarz Davis Seelig Sverre Selbach Ester Serrao Kaylene Simpson Susan Slaugenhaupt Peter Sollich Aaron Straight Sauro Succi Elizabeth Sztul Tian Tang Peter Tino Reuben Tooze Zoltan Toroczkai Arne Traulsen Catrin Tudur Smith Daniel Ungar Martijn Van Zanten Andres Vazquez-Torres Alessandro Vespignani Andreas Villunger Ranjani Viswanatha Angela Wandinger-Ness Lin Wang Fengping Wang Jorn Werner Alex Whitworth Alison Woollard Chengbin Xiang Yihong Ye Yoshikazu Yonemitsu Zhongming Zhao |
* Lists of signatures and supporters are updated automatically several times a day
|
|
|
