RE: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

As I tried to explain in an earlier post, peer review for journal 
publishing is (with rare exceptions) left in the hands of the 
journal editor and the journal's editorial advisory board; the 
publisher generally is not directly involved in the process at 
all, but simply "supports" (a term I prefer to "manages") the 
system. It is the prerogative of the publisher to "enforce peer 
review" indirectly via the contract with the journal editor, 
which typically contains a clause that requires the editor to 
uphold normal standards of peer review. So an editor who can be 
shown not to uphold those standards is subject to dismissal.

For scholarly books, however, the publisher most definitely is 
involved in the actual process of peer review through judgments 
made by its acquiring editors, the selection by those editors of 
external peer reviewers, and the final review of external and 
staff reports by a faculty editorial committee (in the case of 
university presses). It is therefore fair to describe the book 
publishing process as one in which the publisher directly 
"enforces peer review."

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press


>I don't understand this.  Isn't peer review up to the editor and 
>editorial board and payment up to the publisher?  My experience 
>is not broad but aren't these usually separate. When I was 
>editor of a BMC journal, I had disagreements with publisher on 
>payment issues (waivers, etc.) but they had no input to our 
>decisions on peer reviewers.  I have not followed the details of 
>the Bentham case but is this an exception?
>
>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>Richard D. Feinman
>Professor of Biochemistry
>Clinical Professor of Family Practice
>SUNY Downstate Medical Center
>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =