Thread. 😬 Some context: of the ten papers, the author of one yanked it on being contacted; the author of another said they couldn’t meet because of conflicting commitments; the author of a third just didn’t show up. For academics, publications are REALLY important.
TMLR has faced a deluge of submissions, necessitating stricter desk rejection policies due to limited reviewer capacity Co-EiC Nihar Shah reached out to authors of 10 papers slated for desk reject. Could they answer questions about their *own* submission? medium.com
medium.com
When an editor of a journal to which you have submitted a paper asks to meet, you do not say you have other obligations, or just fail to show up. You just don’t. It’s inconceivable. Also: as this piece’s author says, journal editors are volunteers. They cannot do this all the time. Using AI to write your papers is not just wrong for all the obvious reasons; it also just breaks the entire model of academic journals, and will imho require its complete replacement, especially since if people are using AI to write papers, they are also using AI to review them. I think the existing model of academic journals is broken, but it remains in place because its alternatives have costs. Now all academics will have to pay them. Thanks, cheaters. For people who work in bureaucracies: not meeting with an editor of a journal you’ve submitted a paper to is worse than telling your boss you’re too busy when they ask for a meeting. It’s more like saying this to your CEO. And just not showing up for the meeting: ???!! Unless by some strange coincidence all three authors had medical emergencies that left them either comatose or otherwise unable to meet, something like not wanting to admit they didn’t write the paper they submitted is pretty much the only option.