>Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic
>Bruno S. Frey
>Survival in academia depends on publications in refereed journals. Authors
>only get their papers accepted if they intellectually prostitute
>themselves by slavishly following the demands made by anonymous referees
>without property rights on the journals they advise. Intellectual
>prostitution is neither beneficial to suppliers nor consumers. But it is
>avoidable. The editor (with property rights on the journal) should make
>the basic decision of whether a paper is worth publishing or not. The
>referees only give suggestions on how to improve the paper. The author may
>disregard this advice. This reduces intellectual prostitution and
>produces more original publications.
The final 3 sentences are implied to be a recommendation for how
things should be as opposed to Sentence 2 which is suggested to describe
the status quo.
Wrong. I have more than once (e.g _Combust Sc & Tech_
and _Curr Sc_) had a paper pubd by the editor's direct overt over-ruling
of a referee's recommendation against pubn. In each case, extremely
antagonistic anon referee's comments were fwd to me in the normal way; I
explained what was wrong with them; and the editor then proceeded to pub
I'm not primarily interested in 'property rights', but I do in
passing doubt if many editors hold such in their jnls.