From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 11:03:23 +0400
Yes, the publisher is accountable (and I have never said they are
distanced, or used any of the words you ascribe to me.) But that
doesn't mean that the publisher interferes with the peer-review
process. The publisher can increase the height of the bar, but lower
it? If you have had experience where a publisher has demanded that an
editor of an academic journal accept an academic paper even though
that editor has felt that the paper has failed the test of
peer-review, and that editor has agreed, then please let us know. I
would really be interested to know the journals at which that happens.
THOSE journals could go on a special list.
BTW: The term "employed" is used loosely. I, for one, am not
"employed" by my publisher. None of the editors of ISPUB are paid a
dime for our work. And I'm quite happy with that. It just emphasises
the fact that I have no vested interest in whether or not a paper is
published in my journal.
Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
On 31 May 2013 08:32, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:31:47 -0400
> On 5/30/13 12:04 AM, Bill Cohen wrote:
> Respectfully, the journal Editor is employed by the Publisher.
> The Publisher is ultimately held accountable for the quality of
> his/her journals. The Publisher's success or failure rides on this.
> To reverse this and argue that the Publisher is somehow not
> accountable for, or distanced from, the quality, professionalism, and
> behavior of his/her journal Editors, does not make sense.
> Sandy's argument is logical not only in the journal arena but
> mandatory in business practice in general.
> The usually appreciated statement about executive accountability is
> recapped below.