[Steve Holmes]

Dear Jeremy,

I of course realise that not all Letters can be published – it’s the way those to be published and those to be rejected are decided that I am questioning.

My first point was that surely the interests of the membership should be a deciding factor, not those of the Editor – this can lead to rejection for purely arbitrary reasons.

Secondly, I would have thought that a comment on a published JBAA paper deserves to be seen by the membership, in order to justify the Journal’s (presumed) desire to see itself as a peer-reviewed vehicle. If the comment turns out to be fallacious or mis-construed, then it is up to the membership to say so by means of a further contribution. That is what peer-review is all about!

And lastly, why could I (and presumably other contributors) not have been given more information about the reason for rejection? If one doesn’t know why a contribution has been rejected how can one ever submit with confidence? Is not the Editor supposed to encourage and advise contributors rather than frustrate them?

Best regards,

 Steve

[Author]

Posts