This isn't fiction. It's a collection of real experiences that reveal patterns in how some academic journals operate. The names have been changed, but the emails, the chaos, and the beautiful irony are all real.
Act I: The Speed Complaint
Our story begins with Maria, an assistant editor who received a comprehensive peer review. The problem? It was too good, too fast. Here's what actually happened:
"We noticed your review was completed quite quickly. We're concerned this might indicate the use of AI tools rather than genuine expert analysis. Could you confirm that this review represents your original academic assessment?"
The irony? The review was thorough, structured, and provided detailed feedback on methodology, literature review, and conclusions. But because it was completed efficiently, it was suddenly suspicious.
Act II: The Random Invitation
Meanwhile, at another journal from the same publisher, April sends out guest editor invitations. But here's the twist—they're essentially random:
"We would like to invite you to serve as a guest editor for our special issue. Please note that you will need to identify and recruit your own senior co-editors. We trust your judgment in building an appropriate editorial team."
Translation: "We picked you randomly, and now you get to do our job too."
Act III: The Post-Hoc Edit Request
The story reaches peak absurdity when Dr. Sorina enters the scene. After editing a reviewer's report without permission, she sends this gem:
"We made some adjustments to your review for clarity and tone. Please click this link to approve the changes we've already made and sent to the authors."
The beautiful irony? She's asking for retroactive approval for changes that have already been sent. It's like redecorating someone's house and then asking if they like it.
The Patterns Behind the Chaos
These aren't isolated incidents. They reveal systematic patterns in how some journals operate:
Random Selection
Invitations sent without proper vetting, followed by delegation of core responsibilities
Speed Suspicion
Quality work dismissed based on completion time rather than substance
Edit-First Policy
Changes made to reviewer reports, then approval requested after the fact
Communication Drift
Unclear ownership, shifting responsibilities, and inconsistent application of standards
What Good Actually Looks Like
Contrast this chaos with professional standards:
Professional Editorial Practices
- Transparent selection: Clear criteria for inviting guest editors and reviewers
- Substance over speed: Evaluate the argument and evidence, not the timestamp
- Consent-first edits: Propose changes with tracked differences and explicit approval
- Clear communication: One point of contact, defined timelines, documented decisions
- Professional support: Adequate editorial infrastructure and guidance
Protecting Your Professional Time
So what can you do when you encounter this circus? Here's a practical checklist:
Boundary Protection Strategy
- Ask for scope and authority up front: What decisions can you make? What support exists?
- Request written guidelines: Conflict rules, timelines, and acceptance criteria
- Require edit protocols: "Share tracked changes; I'll approve before anything is sent"
- Document everything: Keep records of requests, responses, and decisions
- Set clear boundaries: Define what professional communication looks like
- Know when to withdraw: Sometimes the most professional response is stepping away
Red Flags to Recognize
🚩 Warning Signs
"We trust you—please recruit your own team" "Your review was too quick, therefore questionable" "We modified your review; please approve after the fact" Inconsistent application of stated guidelines Unclear ownership and shifting responsibilitiesThe Professional Response
When faced with institutional chaos, the most powerful response isn't angry confrontation—it's documented withdrawal with clear conditions for re-engagement.
The beautiful irony? These dysfunctional processes often generate more educational value through their failure documentation than through their published content. Every violated boundary becomes a teaching moment about professional standards.