As far as I can see, four papers have been published in JOIBS so far. One of them is co-authored by Associate Editor Cory Clark. That paper cites 12 of her papers.
A preprint with the same title 'Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias' has been withdrawn from PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/q476z "Reason for withdrawal: Paper is now under review."
So, it seems the authors were unable to publish this rather long paper anywhere... and finally placed it into a journal where one of co-authors is an associate editor. Cynics might say that you created a journal to self-publish and self-promote.
Hi Igor! Nice to have you around. You are half right. The Winegard, Clark et al paper was indeed submitted to a slew of journals, none of which published it. Whether that is a comment on the quality of the paper or on the dysfunctional nature of conventional peer review is, of course, a matter of opinion. We did get two reviews that were glowing, one from a former member of the PoPS editorial board (who resigned as a response to the Fiedlering on the Roof/Racist Mule contoversy) and one is an editor of a solid mid-tier psych journal.
I feel pretty good about publishing it. This nonsense is exaclty what JOIBS was created to address. Look for those glowing reviews to appear as soon.
Regardless, feel free to use "rejected at journals" as a heuristic to evaluate quality. I think its a bad heuristic, imho, but you are free to do so. There is, however, an alternative -- evaluate papers on their scientific merits rather than on where they were rejected from or published.
It is true that 1/4 main articles published so far are by an editor. We currently have 7 under review and, if the authors send in their revisions, those will be published as well. None of those are by editors.
I used to be very naive regarding peer-review, but when I started working on cycling issues, I realized how politicized that field has become. Probably as politicized as your field is. However, I am very skeptical regarding "private" journals.
I am sure this article of mine ("Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion") will be also of some interest https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1989677
And regarding self-publishing, here is our systematic review ("Editors publishing in their own journals: A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects") https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1449
So, "a controversial topic" + "Nonfinancial COI" + " 'private' journals" + "self-publishing" makes me very skeptical... hopefully, your journal will prove me wrong.
Igor, thanks for the links. Definitely agree that there are probably infinite COIs, including "wanting to establish a reputation to get grants, promotions and awards." Indeed, there is such a web of COIs for most researchers, especially on anything controversial, that it is impossible to avoid or identify them all. This is not to dismiss your point. It acknowledges it, while viewing the possibility of addressing most in any serious way with more than a little skepticism. Regardless:
1. I can't tell what you mean by a "private journal," because none of the three links use that term.
2. I do not know what you mean by "self-published" in this context. The term is not used in the link on Editors publishing in their own journals.
3. I did neglect to mention that Cory joined as editor *after* her paper was submitted and reviewed. So it is literally true that she is an editor who has published in JOIBS, but it is not true that her paper was reviewed *while* she was an editor. It is impossible to have a conflict between two interests at the time that you only had one interest That should put any sensible concerns about COI on that score to rest (not that it will put yours to rest). You know, the old A (COI) can't cause B (biased review process) if A occurred *after* B thing. Unless you believe Bem was right.
1. I did not write "private journal" I wrote " 'private' journal." I am not a native English speaker but "'private' journal" in this context can be understood as a journal, which was formed by a group of people who share the same values. We can argue about what those values are... In any case, I wrote in my blog about the group of researchers from one university who formed their own (or "private") journal, and in my article I wrote about the connection between the Journal of Transport and Health (JTH) and the organization called Transport and Health Study Group – THSG. Hope this clears it up.
2. Self-publishing in this context means when editors publish in their own journal. We mentioned self-publishing 3 times in the abstract and many times in the linked paper ("Editors publishing in their own journals: A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects"). For example, this if from the abstract:"Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self-publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. " So we used that term in our article.
3. I don't know when Cory joined the journal. I know that she was among SOIBS founders "This essay was written by Cory Clark and me collaboratively; we are among the 10 SOIBS founders." A funny thing, a fast search on Twitter, and Cory was joking more than two years ago
"I am tempted to start my own 'a-ok' journal that publishes anything that meets a good enough standard with the approval of just one editor in less than one month. The current procedures are painfully inefficient."
Great idea but, unfortunately, government scientists (like me) aren't authorized to pay submission fees (not even out of personal funds). Is there an exemption in cases where fee payment is prohibited by the author's organization?
Well dang. I had never heard of that before. Do you have something you might want to submit? The Grand Old Man of Social Psych at Rutgers, Seymour Rosenberg, once said, "Never make any decision until you need to make it."
Not immediately, but I would consider it for future work, especially the more the so many traditional journals inject anti-scientific wokiness into their editorial process. Feh.
I am BEYOND STOKED to see new journals popping up all over the place on Substack!! I think this is excellent, and I wish you so much success. I'm a grant writer and will be looking for opportunities to help support indie journals where I can. Let's get this ecosystem going!!!
Wonderful, thank you so much. Support? 1. Publicity, share widely. 2. Inform academics/researchers (including outside academia) about us. 3. "Indie journal" is a perfect description of this. (I have thought of us as a sort of "garage journal" in the same way as mid-60s garage bands -- cranked up in a garage, although in our case the "garage" is mostly my laptop). Or startup (like a tech startup on a shoestring) 4. Did you say grants? Money? Seriously, because we are a garage/indie/startup, we need money. Funded on a shoestring (a couple of small grants, some of my grant $ from Rutgers, AND I use the income from paid subscriptions here to backstop expenses -- as in, "I approve expenses even if I do not have grant money because I have enough in my Unsafe Sci account to cover it, but I will keep looking for grants to cover it" sort of way. I have backstopped a slew of SOIBS initiatives this way, and, so far, have only once had to lay out Unsafe Sci money, so this is working. But you have leads for getting us funding, please keep me posted.
How about a axiom for your journal? To wit: “Everyone is mostly wrong about everything, always”.
This axiom is foundational to open inquiry. Individually, we are greatly limited in knowing anything because of our limits in perception, cognition, and imagination. We advance durable knowledge when we bounce ideas around with others who challenge the premise, reveal some of the biases, question the logic, and add perspective. But advancement of knowledge is contingent upon the sharing of the thinking that developed the knowledge, i.e., open inquiry. The axiom is a humbler to remind us that, if we do want to really pursue truth, we need each other and we need to challenge what we think we know.
The paper my colleagues and I wrote was probably rejected from, or told it was a bad fit for, around 10 journals. Thankful that we found a home with JOIBS! In addition to all the issues raised in this article, another problem is that it takes a huge amount of time to reformat articles for each new submission. This is yet one additional disincentive to do work that is controversial, admittedly incremental (IMO much of published social science is incremental yet described otherwise), or likely to produce null results.
As far as I can see, four papers have been published in JOIBS so far. One of them is co-authored by Associate Editor Cory Clark. That paper cites 12 of her papers.
A preprint with the same title 'Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias' has been withdrawn from PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/q476z "Reason for withdrawal: Paper is now under review."
So, it seems the authors were unable to publish this rather long paper anywhere... and finally placed it into a journal where one of co-authors is an associate editor. Cynics might say that you created a journal to self-publish and self-promote.
PS. I am not a mob member. ;-)
Hi Igor! Nice to have you around. You are half right. The Winegard, Clark et al paper was indeed submitted to a slew of journals, none of which published it. Whether that is a comment on the quality of the paper or on the dysfunctional nature of conventional peer review is, of course, a matter of opinion. We did get two reviews that were glowing, one from a former member of the PoPS editorial board (who resigned as a response to the Fiedlering on the Roof/Racist Mule contoversy) and one is an editor of a solid mid-tier psych journal.
I feel pretty good about publishing it. This nonsense is exaclty what JOIBS was created to address. Look for those glowing reviews to appear as soon.
Regardless, feel free to use "rejected at journals" as a heuristic to evaluate quality. I think its a bad heuristic, imho, but you are free to do so. There is, however, an alternative -- evaluate papers on their scientific merits rather than on where they were rejected from or published.
It is true that 1/4 main articles published so far are by an editor. We currently have 7 under review and, if the authors send in their revisions, those will be published as well. None of those are by editors.
I used to be very naive regarding peer-review, but when I started working on cycling issues, I realized how politicized that field has become. Probably as politicized as your field is. However, I am very skeptical regarding "private" journals.
Here is my blog ("Own awards and own journals: what could possibly go wrong?) on that issue: https://blogs.helsinki.fi/radun/2020/07/02/own-awards-and-own-journals-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
I am sure this article of mine ("Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion") will be also of some interest https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1989677
And regarding self-publishing, here is our systematic review ("Editors publishing in their own journals: A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects") https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1449
So, "a controversial topic" + "Nonfinancial COI" + " 'private' journals" + "self-publishing" makes me very skeptical... hopefully, your journal will prove me wrong.
Igor, thanks for the links. Definitely agree that there are probably infinite COIs, including "wanting to establish a reputation to get grants, promotions and awards." Indeed, there is such a web of COIs for most researchers, especially on anything controversial, that it is impossible to avoid or identify them all. This is not to dismiss your point. It acknowledges it, while viewing the possibility of addressing most in any serious way with more than a little skepticism. Regardless:
1. I can't tell what you mean by a "private journal," because none of the three links use that term.
2. I do not know what you mean by "self-published" in this context. The term is not used in the link on Editors publishing in their own journals.
3. I did neglect to mention that Cory joined as editor *after* her paper was submitted and reviewed. So it is literally true that she is an editor who has published in JOIBS, but it is not true that her paper was reviewed *while* she was an editor. It is impossible to have a conflict between two interests at the time that you only had one interest That should put any sensible concerns about COI on that score to rest (not that it will put yours to rest). You know, the old A (COI) can't cause B (biased review process) if A occurred *after* B thing. Unless you believe Bem was right.
1. I did not write "private journal" I wrote " 'private' journal." I am not a native English speaker but "'private' journal" in this context can be understood as a journal, which was formed by a group of people who share the same values. We can argue about what those values are... In any case, I wrote in my blog about the group of researchers from one university who formed their own (or "private") journal, and in my article I wrote about the connection between the Journal of Transport and Health (JTH) and the organization called Transport and Health Study Group – THSG. Hope this clears it up.
2. Self-publishing in this context means when editors publish in their own journal. We mentioned self-publishing 3 times in the abstract and many times in the linked paper ("Editors publishing in their own journals: A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects"). For example, this if from the abstract:"Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self-publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. " So we used that term in our article.
3. I don't know when Cory joined the journal. I know that she was among SOIBS founders "This essay was written by Cory Clark and me collaboratively; we are among the 10 SOIBS founders." A funny thing, a fast search on Twitter, and Cory was joking more than two years ago
"I am tempted to start my own 'a-ok' journal that publishes anything that meets a good enough standard with the approval of just one editor in less than one month. The current procedures are painfully inefficient."
https://twitter.com/ImHardcory/status/1368579654681063425
"Actually, better idea: YOU start this journal so I can submit my papers there :)"
https://twitter.com/ImHardcory/status/1368579739234013185
Joking or not joking, it seems this worked well for her;-)
Great idea but, unfortunately, government scientists (like me) aren't authorized to pay submission fees (not even out of personal funds). Is there an exemption in cases where fee payment is prohibited by the author's organization?
Well dang. I had never heard of that before. Do you have something you might want to submit? The Grand Old Man of Social Psych at Rutgers, Seymour Rosenberg, once said, "Never make any decision until you need to make it."
Not immediately, but I would consider it for future work, especially the more the so many traditional journals inject anti-scientific wokiness into their editorial process. Feh.
Epic. Get ready for some Free Speech research. Stoked this is happening. Will discuss this in my lab. Peace.
I was really hoping for a revival of the Journal of Polymorphous Perversity, but I'll settle for this.
I am BEYOND STOKED to see new journals popping up all over the place on Substack!! I think this is excellent, and I wish you so much success. I'm a grant writer and will be looking for opportunities to help support indie journals where I can. Let's get this ecosystem going!!!
Wonderful, thank you so much. Support? 1. Publicity, share widely. 2. Inform academics/researchers (including outside academia) about us. 3. "Indie journal" is a perfect description of this. (I have thought of us as a sort of "garage journal" in the same way as mid-60s garage bands -- cranked up in a garage, although in our case the "garage" is mostly my laptop). Or startup (like a tech startup on a shoestring) 4. Did you say grants? Money? Seriously, because we are a garage/indie/startup, we need money. Funded on a shoestring (a couple of small grants, some of my grant $ from Rutgers, AND I use the income from paid subscriptions here to backstop expenses -- as in, "I approve expenses even if I do not have grant money because I have enough in my Unsafe Sci account to cover it, but I will keep looking for grants to cover it" sort of way. I have backstopped a slew of SOIBS initiatives this way, and, so far, have only once had to lay out Unsafe Sci money, so this is working. But you have leads for getting us funding, please keep me posted.
What's the best way to get in touch outside substack? There's definitely a longer conversation to be had here!
Go here:
https://sites.rutgers.edu/lee-jussim/people/lee-jussim/
You can find my RU email there. Obviously, anyone can see this, but I'd rather not make it easy...
How about a axiom for your journal? To wit: “Everyone is mostly wrong about everything, always”.
This axiom is foundational to open inquiry. Individually, we are greatly limited in knowing anything because of our limits in perception, cognition, and imagination. We advance durable knowledge when we bounce ideas around with others who challenge the premise, reveal some of the biases, question the logic, and add perspective. But advancement of knowledge is contingent upon the sharing of the thinking that developed the knowledge, i.e., open inquiry. The axiom is a humbler to remind us that, if we do want to really pursue truth, we need each other and we need to challenge what we think we know.
The paper my colleagues and I wrote was probably rejected from, or told it was a bad fit for, around 10 journals. Thankful that we found a home with JOIBS! In addition to all the issues raised in this article, another problem is that it takes a huge amount of time to reformat articles for each new submission. This is yet one additional disincentive to do work that is controversial, admittedly incremental (IMO much of published social science is incremental yet described otherwise), or likely to produce null results.