Dear Editors of the Duck Behavior Journal,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent publications in your journal and the review process that has led to their acceptance. As a long-standing member of the scientific community and a frequent reviewer for your journal, I feel compelled to voice my alarm at the apparent decline in academic standards and scientific rigor in the papers being published.
Over the past several months, I have reviewed a series of papers that, in my professional opinion, fail to meet even the most basic standards of scientific research. These papers have ranged from the misguided to the outright absurd, including:
- A paper claiming ducks are literal Pokémon
- An article proposing duck-inspired anarcho-primitivism as a solution to societal problems
- Most recently, a paper suggesting ducks are engaged in a global conspiracy to control weather and destabilize human society
What troubles me most is not just the content of these papers, but the fact that they have all been accepted for publication despite my strong recommendations for rejection. Upon investigation, I discovered that your journal’s policy is to accept a paper if even one reviewer recommends it, regardless of other reviewers’ critiques.
This policy is deeply flawed and undermines the entire peer review process. It allows papers of questionable scientific merit to be published based on a single positive review, which may itself be flawed or biased. This approach does not serve the interests of scientific advancement, your readers, or the reputation of your journal.
Furthermore, I have noticed that the second reviewer for these papers consistently provides a brief, generic positive review, often with spelling errors, which raises questions about the integrity of the review process.
I urge you to reconsider your review and acceptance policies immediately. A more robust system that requires consensus among reviewers or at least a majority agreement would help maintain the scientific integrity of your journal. Additionally, I recommend a thorough investigation into the review process to ensure all reviews are genuine and meet appropriate standards.
The Duck Behavior Journal has long been a respected publication in its field. However, if these issues are not addressed promptly, I fear for its future credibility and standing in the scientific community.
I look forward to your response and to seeing concrete steps taken to address these serious concerns.
Sincerely,
Reviewer 1
Senior Researcher in Avian Biology