This is an anchor. Do get in touch with the people on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/chrisdc77/status/1020030102892105728[*quote*]
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Colleagues in psychology and neuroscience, I recommend avoiding the journal Cerebral Cortex.Thread follows.
12:38 PM - 19 Jul 2018
New conversation
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
Colleagues of mine submitted, paid $75 submission fee, got rejected after review but were invited to resubmit a fresh paper, to be sent to new reviewers. /1
1 reply 2 retweets 25 likes
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
They resubmitted and had to pay another $75. Got new reviews and were invited to revise but still some critical comments from one reviewer. Rejected again but, again, invited to resubmit another fresh paper with new reviewers and -you guessed it- for another $75. /2
2 replies 2 retweets 25 likes
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
So they're now in a kind of endless loop of submission fees and new reviews. If they agreed to this it would be $225 in submission fees alone for the same paper, and that's on top of the page charges if the article was eventually accepted. /3
1 reply 0 retweets 26 likes
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
The authors query this with the chief editor, who writes from his armchair at Yale: “If the $75 fee, imposed by Oxford University Press for handling this task, is too much for you, then your lab likely has a much bigger problem.” Seriously. /4
16 replies 16 retweets 99 likes
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
Even putting aside the towering arrogance of this response from the editor, this policy is unacceptable for two reasons.
First, it invites authors to get trapped an endless cycle of submission fees and rejections, keeping their hopes just high enough to guarantee revenues. /5
4 replies 1 retweet 67 likes
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
Second, the journal is employing one of the oldest & frankly most cynical tricks in the editorial handbook: continually rejecting papers & inviting them back as fresh submissions, rather than keeping them in the one revision cycle. /6
1 reply 3 retweets 77 likes
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
The reason journals do this is to keep their rejection rates high in order to appear prestigious and selective. It is engineered prestige & is entirely illusory. Where the journal is linked to a for-profit publisher, this ought to be regarded as corrupt business practice. /7
3 replies 20 retweets 158 likes
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
Jul 19
But this is the cynical world we live in, folks. My advice is to avoid journals that engage in this kind of sharp practice, and that means avoiding Cerebral Cortex. @OUPAcademic: you should take a close look at the running of this journal. Something is very wrong.
/end
6 replies 12 retweets 152 likes
End of conversation
New conversation
Mark Humphries
@markdhumphries
14h14 hours ago
Replying to @chrisdc77
Some J Neurosci editors pull the same trick. And the submission fee there is $140.
We really want to support our top "society" journal, to get away from the clutches of Elsevier/Wiley et al. but when it's possible to be $280 in the hole and still getting rejected?
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
Mark Humphries
@markdhumphries
14h14 hours ago
Not saying it's deliberate malice or a con, just that if it's an option as a decision on a paper, editors will take it.
Ultimately, asking for a "resubmission as a new paper" when the journal charges for submission should be banned outright
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
Prof KJ Jeffery
@drkjjeffery
6h6 hours ago
I completely agree with this
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Chris Chambers
Verified account @chrisdc77
6h6 hours ago
Yup. I'd suggest two related bans. No rejections with invitations to resubmit as a new paper:
1) for journals that charge submission fees, and
2) once articles have proceeded to in-depth peer review, even if the journal doesn't charge submission fees
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Dr Pete Etchells
Verified account @PeteEtchells
5h5 hours ago
I agree, obvs, but who would instigate such a ban? Journals aren’t going to self-impose something that harms their income stream.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Prof KJ Jeffery
@drkjjeffery
2h2 hours ago
It’d be harmed if people boycotted it. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. We have to declare ours before accepting/rejecting a paper so why shouldn’t they?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation
Stephen Eglen
@StephenEglen
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77
Stephen Eglen Retweeted Stephen Eglen
agree. I wrote to decline reviewing for them and got a snarky reply from the editorial office.
Stephen Eglen added,
Stephen Eglen
@StephenEglen
I will not review for journals (e.g. Cerebral Cortex) w/ embargo periods > 6 months, as this forces UK to pay APCs for #OA @OUPAcademic
1 reply 3 retweets 31 likes
Simon Schultz
@neuralengine
Jul 19
Disturbing to hear. We have something under review there right now. Our last experience was quite good, but that was a few years ago.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
End of conversation
New conversation
Grumpy Old Doc
🤕 (Retired)
@GrumpyOldDoc
13h13 hours ago
Replying to @chrisdc77
.@OUPAcademic Care to comment?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Oxford Academic
@OUPAcademic
12h12 hours ago
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are looking into this.
0 replies 1 retweet 12 likes
End of conversation
New conversation
jim thornton
@jimgthornton
16h16 hours ago
Replying to @chrisdc77
Absolutely. Open access, author pays has been around since the "vanity publishing" of crummy poetry hundreds of years ago. Result always the same - lowered standards. Reader should pay.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Overly honest editor
@Edit0r_At_Large
10h10 hours ago
Let's not conflate different issues. This has exactly nothing to do with #openaccess
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
End of conversation
Andrew R. Abela
@dr_abela
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77
Just recently we submitted a very thorough paper to CC. They asked for it to be resubmitted with all new reversible genetic experiments that would take over a year to conduct. Needless to say, we moved on to another journal.
0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Paetoro
@DavePaetoro
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77
It's shocking that people think we are happy to abandon our sense of justice to be a part of their silly brand name. They immediately devalue the brand the moment they think so.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
Mingzhou Ding
@CuriousMZD
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77
How common is this problem? I have submitted to Cerebral Cortex numerous times and published several papers there. I felt that all my submissions were handled timely and professionally whether they were rejected or accepted.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
ILoveBitcoin
@SPC_Bitcoin
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77 @amyalkon
Looks like a racket to me!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
faizajtariq
@fjtariq
4h4 hours ago
Replying to @chrisdc77
sounds likea predetory journal
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Elaine Fox
@profelainefox
10h10 hours ago
Replying to @chrisdc77
Shocking behaviour
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Michael Beyak
@mjbeyak
11h11 hours ago
Replying to @chrisdc77
Reject/invite resubmission as a new paper makes no sense. Should be major revisions,make it clear what revisions are mandatory. If a reject resubmission paper ultimately is accepted, well then it wasn’t really rejected, and :.unethical to count as rejection in “journal metrics”
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Helen Freer
🍉
@hmfreer
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77
Cc @RosieSatherley
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
New conversation
orfeolux
@orfeolux
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77
Do you know of any repository of "journals to avoid" to which this one should be added?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
orfeolux
@orfeolux
Jul 19
-
https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/ -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open-access_publishing#List_of_publishers_deemed_predatory …
1 reply 5 retweets 13 likes
End of conversation
New conversation
Nicki Swann
@SwannLab
Jul 19
Replying to @chrisdc77
I submitted there and it took something like two weeks for them to desk reject it with minimal/no feedback. Then a couple days later the same editor asked me to review a paper for them... Not terrible, but super annoying.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
New conversation
sarcastic_f
@sarcastic_f
14h14 hours ago
I hope you declined!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Nicki Swann
@SwannLab
2h2 hours ago
I did! But somehow still felt guilty...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
sarcastic_f
@sarcastic_f
54m54 minutes ago
Don't feel guilty, that was a really irritating move by the editor.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation
Neuroφsically
@neurophysically
22h22 hours ago
Replying to @chrisdc77
Not surprised!
Cerebral Cortex is also artificially increasing its Impact Factor by postponing the publication of online articles in an actual issue.
Sometimes, an article published online at year = n is assigned to an issue at year n+2.
What a tricky journal.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Stephen Eglen
@StephenEglen
16h16 hours ago
gulp. got any examples of the publish online in year n, assign to n+2?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Neuroφsically
@neurophysically
16h16 hours ago
Sure, for instance:
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
sarcastic_f
@sarcastic_f
14h14 hours ago
Holy shit!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Duncan Nicholas
@dnjournals
4h4 hours ago
That paper has only 1 citation though, so that tactic hasn't really worked!
It is also more of an artifact of print-based publishing and necessity to publish articles online asap. They likely have too huge a backlog, hence the delay.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
Duncan Nicholas
@dnjournals
4h4 hours ago
They have 251 articles in the Advance article section, and publish 30 articles per issue. That's 8 months ahead. The oldest one was added 13 July 17.
Perhaps they do deliberately select them rather than add in date order.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Stephen Eglen
@StephenEglen
4h4 hours ago
so with the increase in papers being accepted, delaying papers may be inevitable when there is hard limit (30 / issue) in print.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Duncan Nicholas
@dnjournals
4h4 hours ago
Yes, exactly that. It’s a phenomenon that’s been going on for many years. Also, nearer the end of the year when papers are assigned to issues early, you can see cites for 2019 listed before the year has even begun. Same arrogant effect. Same controversy!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
[*/quote*]
