Summaries and take-aways
1. I declined a review invitation from Science of the Total Environment due to specific research questions and local relevance.
2. I have reviewed for prestigious Web of Science journals including Science of the Total Environment, Heliyon, Journal of Hazardous Materials, British Ecological Society, Land Degradation and Development, Environmental Pollution, Africa Geographic Society, Agronomy, and Land.
3. I have a proven expertise in crafting high-quality scientific papers and transforming data into compelling narratives.
4. I argue against prejudice and stereotypes in the publishing industry especially authors from the global south
Yesterday, I declined a paper review invitation from the Science of the Total Environment. On top of that, they asked me why I couldn't accept their invitation. My rejection reason was shared with friends on this platform. I enabled the privacy settings and limited the content to only mutual friends on this platform. Some commenters expressed love, others expressed liking, another group expressed care for the post, and others expressed tears. My response read:
Dear Chief editor,
I have reviewed a number of manuscripts for this journal and on many times. Interestingly, my manuscripts which are well-vetted and prepared continuously get rejected by editors of this noble journal. Reason? That my paper addresses specific research questions and are of local relevance. In short, I hereby also decline to review papers you send me. I had always painfully wondered: if you don't find my papers worthy to be considered for publication in your journal but you find me competent enough to review papers and appraise their chances of their publishability? These manuscripts from me look good and well-prepared studies and so much of higher strength in terms of quality than many papers published by this Journal STOTEN. I ask, ignorantly perhaps and forgive me if I don't sound right. How many of the papers and published manuscripts come from scientists in the global south? I'm sorry, for, I'm deliberately turning down this invitation. I appreciate the invite though. Many thanks. I have been and will continue to be a reviewer for prestigious Web of Science journals. I have provided reviews for journals such as Science of the Total Environment, Heliyon, Journal of Hazardous Materials, British Ecological Society, Land Degradation and Development, Environmental Pollution, Africa Geographic Society, Agronomy, and Land, among others. Likewise, I have published extensively and received very impressive citations concurrently. I have made presentations internally and internationally. During my PhD, I presented before societies and conferences in eight different countries.
I have honed my skills in crafting high-quality scientific papers and am adept at transforming data into compelling narratives and stories. I craft narratives that demonstrate the utilization of both quantitative and qualitative data in the formulation of public policies. I have published in Q1 journals, especially during my PhD journey in Germany. I have had my paper rejected a couple of times, and I view these instances as occupational hazards within our profession. We are the same reviewers and editors who appraise the quality of papers and recommend the publishability of submitted papers in journals.
We not only write scientific papers, but we also serve as reviewers. Some of my high-quality papers, which possess significant strengths, have been painfully rejected by the field of environmental science. These are papers with vigour and higher strength, which were rightly rejected at the desktop level. While I agree with the editors on some of these rejections, I strongly disagree on others.
Many authors from the global south continue to face prejudice and stereotypes in the publishing industry. We incorporate these exercises into our promotion evaluation process. Occasionally, we reject quality papers due to stereotypes against scientists in the global south.
Look at all the major journals and their editorial boards. Chinese and American editors dominate these editorial boards. In the future, I will compile the top twenty environmental sciences journals and match the following:
a. Number of manuscripts published from the global south
b. The countries in which their chief editors and editorial boards reside
c. The number and composition of Africans in the editorial boards.
Peer review is a critical aspect of assessing quality science, and it prevents bad science from festering. These exercises are done pro-borno. The editors only express their appreciation through thank you notes. The journal then generates revenue from the works of the authors. The author, who owns his work from the field, lab, office, and data analyses, receives no compensation. We merely rejoice when the author receives a printed document in PDF format.
However, the question still pends: why do you trust a scientist to be a good reviewer if you don't think their study is novel
Bismark Yankson
2024-09-29 08:42:12Great one there Prof.