Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by qfwfq_ on Sunday September 17, 2017 @11:56AM
(#15270190)
I've also seen this happen, where an article was designed in pre-consultation with a journal editor in my field. We submitted (what I felt was) a dubious paper initially. Reviews were very harsh, but the paper was not rejected. I was amazed we had four months to revise and resub. It was eventually published. I was an early grad student at the time, so I didn't know that this was unusual.
Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by kobeya on Saturday September 16, 2017 @05:29PM
(#15266864)
That would be scandalous headline news if true.
Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by Myrmornis on Saturday September 16, 2017 @10:02PM
(#15267864)
It's standard in human genetics, at least in the UK. The editors of Nature have a close relationship with influential PIs and their labs, are present at social events / parties, and the general direction and appropriateness/desirability of papers are certainly discussed with the editors early in the process. These are projects with large budgets that span several years. Of course, there is still peer review, and it is still rigorous.
If you're a PI on a big project or heading a big group, it's routine business to meet journal editors, invite them to your lab and reach publication agreements before writing your paper.
Obviously the paper will still go to review. But even that is already a big hurdle you have bypassed. In the big 3 journals, it's equally tough to get to review than to pass reviews once there. Plus, with direct contact to the editor, it's easier to get your paper reviewed by friendlier peers and/or influence ultimate editorial decisions.