Björn Brembs4d ago

For the overwhelming majority of professional scholarly work, rejection should be the very, very last resort and a marker of communication failure:

"While rejections are expected and often unavoidable, the way decisions are communicated has significant implications for author trust and engagement. Clear, respectful and transparent communication can transform a rejection into a learning opportunity.
"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.2049

#publishing #scholcomm

Show threadKoen Hufkens, PhD4d ago
@brembs This is working under the assumption that submissions meet the standard of professional scholarly work. This low bar is increasingly not met, and often by a large margin.
Show threadBjörn Brembs

@koen_hufkens

I guessed that there would be this counter-argument and so I tried to use the word 'professional' to distinguish such work from, e.g., dillettante or amateur 😇

Mar 16 at 2:39pmWeb
Show threadKoen Hufkens, PhD4d ago

@brembs Even this argument is false. I publish with "amateurs", and this doesn't negatively affect quality. This has to do with having had an education (in modesty and rigour?) or getting the right people on board (in the case below that was me and Christoph, Nathan for the stats).

https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/oik.08594