Re: Refereeing request for Math.Ann.
Mar. 25th, 2024 07:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
posicDear Prof. <...>,
As a matter of personal policy, I do not do any reviews for journals that would not publish my own work. The explanation is that I cannot be possibly qualified to maintain high standards of which my own research output falls short.
Back in September 2013, I submitted my paper titled "Artin-Tate motivic sheaves with finite coefficients over an algebraic variety" to Mathematische Annalen. On February 20, 2014, my paper was rejected by your journal. The editor <...> wrote: "The referee liked the paper, but expressed the opinion that the paper was bordeline for Annalen." The referee wrote: "To conclude: I would say that the paper could be considered good enough for Mathematische Annalen (certainly after revision) but, to me, it doesn't stand as a clear case." The editor also wrote: "I also note that your paper is over 30 pages long, and with page restrictions and backlog pressures, stricter standards would be applicable to your paper."
All I can say now is that, with any future requests for refereeing, you may want to turn to people whose work does actually stand as a clear case for publication in your journal. By your own decision, I am not one of such people.
Sincerely yours,
Leonid Positselski
As a matter of personal policy, I do not do any reviews for journals that would not publish my own work. The explanation is that I cannot be possibly qualified to maintain high standards of which my own research output falls short.
Back in September 2013, I submitted my paper titled "Artin-Tate motivic sheaves with finite coefficients over an algebraic variety" to Mathematische Annalen. On February 20, 2014, my paper was rejected by your journal. The editor <...> wrote: "The referee liked the paper, but expressed the opinion that the paper was bordeline for Annalen." The referee wrote: "To conclude: I would say that the paper could be considered good enough for Mathematische Annalen (certainly after revision) but, to me, it doesn't stand as a clear case." The editor also wrote: "I also note that your paper is over 30 pages long, and with page restrictions and backlog pressures, stricter standards would be applicable to your paper."
All I can say now is that, with any future requests for refereeing, you may want to turn to people whose work does actually stand as a clear case for publication in your journal. By your own decision, I am not one of such people.
Sincerely yours,
Leonid Positselski
no subject
Date: 2024-03-25 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-03-25 09:20 pm (UTC)Да, нередко отвечают. Я просто обычно не публикую чужих писем (это совсем уж не принято), публикую только свои.
В последний (кажется) раз мне отвечали, что acceptance rate у них очень низкий (меньше 10%), что их журналу приходилось отвергать работы филдсовских лауреатов, что если все будут поступать, как я, то пул рецензентов для их журнала сузится до круга авторов, публиковавшихся у них, и подумай, мол, то ли это, чего ты хочешь. Я в ответ не стал ничего писать (а подумал, что нет смысла переписываться с корреспондентом, меряющим меня общей цифрой acceptance rate; что я ему напишу — что мои работы особь статья, и та, которую они отвергли, по гамбургскому счету попадала бы в самый малый верхний процент? если он этого не понимает, то не мне ему это объяснять, просто такая переписка не имеет смысла; к тому же, мне решительно наплевать, как будет функционировать его журнал; по мне, так пусть хоть завтра же закроется).