Responses on Paper Rejection
PWRD editorial board welcomes the suggestions, comments, and feedback from the reader, author and reviewer community of PWRD. Please send your comments to EIC or editors. Comments of general interest to the community will be posted here (with the agreement of the writer and with minor editing to hide information that may identify the writer). If applicable, responses will be included as well.
===============
Thank you for this review. One of the problems we have is that we are finding it a challenge to publish this work because it is always immediately compared to a fully developed XXXX algorithms which we ourselves have worked on for over 30 years.
For any new technology to mature, a first paper must be written and with discussion and others working on it, it will improve. Naturally at the University we can only deal with simpler control systems that we can build in our labs. For example one of the reviewers said that the PI controller was not realistic for an HVDC system. We thought this would be OK because our paper was on a [new] simulation method and not on dc control. In a University laboratory, the controller has to be physically built, which is why we chose a simpler illustrative example. We thought we had this time shown a realistic example based on the earlier rejection.
EIC comment: I fully agree with the above point (For any new technology to mature, a first paper must be written) and feel bad about the rejection of this paper. Some reviewers do have unrealistic expectations. I would like to write the following to the reviewers: please note that a research paper is NOT a blue print for building a bridge or something similar that have a legal (liability) implication. A paper is to stimulate further development or applications by others. It does not have to be perfect (specially for a paper describing a completely new concept). Some imperfections will not cause a power system to collapse as everyone knows a paper has a long way to go for actual implementation. Therefore, if a paper has adequate contributions, is technically sound, and does not mislead readers, it should be welcomed by PWRD.
===============
I have received fabulous reviews as well as it was stated that my algorithm cannot be tested in another software. The algorithm is running on PSSE, Matpower and OpenDSS. An administrative reject has been carried out due to this issue. The review took about 8 month.
In summation your journal is not worth the effort because of time is very long and reviewer are very low of competence.
===============
The appreciation of reviewers is always questionable. But how it was possible that my proposal, extending an earlier publication in PWRD, was rejected is not clear to me. But PWRD is not the only IEEE-proceeding with troubles with reviewers. I received from Trans on XXXX even a reaction that showed that one of the reviewers hardly understood the proposal and claimed that the article, treating the force between two current carrying rectangular bars based on the vector potential, was not in-line with the philosophy of that proceedings. Fighting against this formulation as author is fully useless.
I was disappointed in IEEE. I hope future will be better.
===============
I am planning to make a formal complaint regarding the kind of unethical comments made by Reviewer 1. Not because he used my name – but because he is making a moral judgment on one particular author. This is totally unacceptable and you as an editor should have reprehended the Reviewer.
Dear Prof. XXX,
Thanks for your feedback. We take the complaint of authors seriously and will address your concern. To start the process, can you please write a formal complaint detailing the specific statements that you are concerned with. I will then discuss your material with the editor and decide the next step of action. In all cases, your material will be forwarded to the reviewer (unless your object so). The reviewer may be required to provide a response based on the suggestion of the editor.
Dear Prof. Wilsun Xu,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Together with the other authors we will write the complaint against Reviewer 1 – which did not keep within the technical criticisms of the paper and singled out and accused one particular author of unprofessional attitude.
EIC comment: The author did not provide more information per the request. So no action was taken.
===============
I have a question about paper review process. In IEEE transactions like industrial electronics and power electronics if paper gets rejected they are modifying the contents pointed out by reviewer and again they sent it to same journal. In power delivery do we not have that kind of scope. I want to know if the paper got rejected, could it be modified according to reviewers comment and submit it as new submission after modification for review again.
EIC Response: For some of the rejected papers, PWRD does indicate they can be submitted as new ones after additional research work. Such papers have some promising ideas but the research has not been done to the satisfaction of the reviewers. PWRD will not reprocess other rejected papers as this becomes essentially finding a group of volunteers (reviewers and editor) to help an author to improve his/her research. Re-submission of rejected papers is strongly discouraged.
==============
Although the respected reviewers provided non-supportive comments but still the author should get a chance to answer to their questions. It seems like a younger researcher has no place to prove her/him. Then why this community considers us as a potential reviewer. If we can’t publish then how can we review.
EIC Response: For rejected papers, authors can still write their responses. EIC normally forwards them to the reviewers and editor. To do this, the authors shall document everything in one PDF file and email to EIC with the paper number. It is essential that the response is written in a professional manner focusing on technical discussions. Materials contain inappropriate information (such as personal attacks) will not be forwarded to the reviewers.
==============
Dear Editor,
Please be informed that my student in the Msc stage has received a paper from IEEE PWRD for reviewing ! and he discussed this matter with me!!! This student is still in the Msc stage and he sent a paper for IEEE as this the first time in his life to deal with a journal and he done that under my supervision— this matter reached me to a conclusion that almost asking “APPEAL” that the comments come from IEEE in most times for my papers do not have scientific core and non logic rejection in spite of the papers have novel idea!
Please send the papers for reviewers with strong CV!!and working in same area!!!!
Editor Response: I understand your concern, but I think it is result of non perfect system, which is the peer review.
I can tell you how I proceed with the selection of reviewers. I invite normally up to 5 or 6 reviewers. These initial selection includes one/two recognized academics, one/two postdoc researchers, industry research engineers or PhD students close to the end of their PhD, and one/two more researchers I do not know. One of them is usually an author of a paper listed in the references and the other one selected from a list of suggested reviewers (who are submitting authors) with some associated expertise fields. These authors appear automatically in the system as peers who are available as reviewers. I like to invite these unknown reviewers because it is a good way for me to get to know them and broaden the pool of reviewers. Unfortunately, the system does not tell me what is their experience and academic degree. For this reason I limit the number of them in each review process. I guess your student is one of them. From the different reviews I collect I try to make a fair recommendation and ask additional reviewers when needed. I think IEEE has an excellent and fair procedure to process the papers. I am sorry if you have been disappointed in previous papers, I also have had the same feeling in multiple journals, but I understand it is part of this imperfect system we call peer review.
EIC Response: Thanks for your information. The Editor has provided a good summary on our normal practice. In addition, we will update the invitation for review letter by adding statement: “if you don’t have adequate experience in reviewing papers, please decline this request”.
The point you raised – some papers did not receive good reviews – is a constant concern for PWRD editorial board. A fundamental solution to this problem is for experienced researchers to contribute to paper review, especially those who submit multiple papers. Your reviewing record is shown below. If you want to start to contribute to paper review, please let me know per the following webpage: http://site.ieee.org/tpwrd/benefits-to-be-a-reviewer/
================
Dear Professor Wilsun Xu,
The e-mail I sent you on 25 April 2016 is meant ‘for your information’ and for the information of the reviewers. However, please feel free to share it with anyone else whom you might think to be appropriate.
My request was clearly formulated: please remove the non-tenable statements from the list on which you have taken your decision. For what then remains on the list, I leave it in your hands what to do with it.
In my interaction with Journal Editors I have always observed two golden ‘rules’:
Rule #1: the Editor-in-Chief is always right,
Rule #2: in case the Editor-in-Chief might be wrong, Rule #1 applies!
As far as I am concerned, the discussion is closed.
EIC Response:
Dear Editor and Reviewers
Sometimes I receive feedback from authors about the review work. I always try to share the feedback with editors and reviewers, as it may be helpful for future paper reviews. In this case, the author did not appeal the decision. He just wants to share the information. However, if you feel that the paper deserves a 2nd chance, please let me know.
Thanks for your review work.
Author’s follow up response:
Dear Professor Wilsun Xu,
Thank you for sending me the copy of your e-mail to the Editor and Reviewers. It exactly expresses my intention. I would like to thank you for the elegant and courteous manner in which you do handle the matter.
========================
I am writing in response to the review I received regarding XXXX.
I would like to thank the reviewers and the editors for taking the time to review the paper. I believe that the majority of their comments are valid and fairly typical of what is expected in a typical review process, and in fact they can all be very quickly and simply addressed within the revise-and-resubmit time frame without altering the basic nature of the paper.
Because of this, and because both the associate editor and editor-in-chief acknowledge in their replies that this work presents a novel contribution, I am puzzled as to why IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery rejected this paper outright instead of requesting that I revise and resubmit it, as would be normally expected. This rejection seems particularly out of place given that the reviewers’ comments request clarification and responses to their inquiries.
Could you please provide an explanation of this final decision so that I can better understand what is and is not acceptable for publication in Power Delivery?
EIC Response:
Your paper is not rejected completely. You are allowed to make extensive revision and then resubmit.
This decision is based on the experience of the editor and myself. You and the editor have a different understanding on the nature and extend of the revisions required. Based on his/her experience on processing various papers, the editor has concluded that a RR decision is likely to lead to “painful” review process for all parties involved (for example, multiple revisions with eventual rejection). By rejecting the paper now, you are given unconstrained time to make significant improvements so the paper can be reviewed easily if you decide to resubmit.
In summary, please take the review comments seriously and don’t underestimate the required improvements. This is the best way to get your paper accepted eventually.