ACS Publications Ombudsperson

2023 ACS PUBLICATIONS OMBUDS SERVICES UTILIZATION

Prepared by Dr. Kathleen Canul, ACS Publications Ombudsperson

The following is a summary of services provided to individuals requesting conflict resolution services (visitors) from the ACS Publications Ombudsperson from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.

Requests for Service 

Twelve visitors requested assistance in addressing an ACS Publications matter. All initiated this request via email. Based on available demographic data, eight males and four females raised concerns. Ten of the reported problems came from diverse visitors who work outside of the United States (U.S.) and two from underrepresented groups within the U.S.

Nature of Concerns 

The majority of visitors (10) were Authors and the remaining two were Reviewers. The most frequently reported concern was communication with Editors. Authors and Reviewers combined (9) expressed frustration with the length of time it took Editors to reply to their concern and the perceived inadequacy of the response, when received. Six of these visitors shared communication problems with Editors in Chief; three with other Editors. Several Authors and Reviewers (7) questioned the competency of Reviewers in their evaluation of submitted papers. Additionally, Authors (5) and Reviewers (2) believed bias was involved in the review process of submitted papers because of their ethnicity or country of birth or home institution in a country outside of the U.S. Authors stated their work did not receive a fair appraisal and Reviewers felt their contributions were not valued or were ignored. Six Authors believed their paper was rejected for reasons unrelated to the merit of their work (e.g. bias, lack of competency of Reviewer in their area of science). One visitor expressed problems with the ACS Publications website.

Observations Regarding Utilization 

Surprisingly, ten of the twelve cases came from visitors outside of the U.S. which coincides with the reports of perceived bias in the review process, however the significantly lower utilization rates by ACS Authors and Reviewers from U.S. based institutions is curious and warrants examination. It appears that there exists a discrepancy in expectations from Authors and Reviewers when expressing a complaint to an Editor. At times, requests from Authors or Reviewers for information that cannot be shared or disagreements with protocol suggest a lack of clarity with the review process, itself. There is also a presumption that Editors should respond promptly and completely to questions, and it appears that there may be room for improvement and growth in this area. Also, while Editors have been cooperative in helping resolve some of the reported communication concerns, no Editor has initiated a request for personal assistance from the ombudsperson.

Summary

More outreach efforts raising the visibility, accessibility and utility of Ombuds services are necessary to ensure that those requesting guidance regarding fairness and equity concerns are aware of this resource. This outreach plan should include thoughtful and tailored strategies to facilitate inclusion of diverse populations accessing Ombuds services.

Editors can be made aware that the ombudsperson is a resource for dealing with the interpersonal communication challenges that come with receiving complaints. Editors may also benefit from having general guidance regarding Author or Reviewer expectations regarding response timelines.

Opportunities for the ombudsperson’s continued understanding and learning about the ACS Publications community’s conflict resolution needs should be further explored.

ACS Publications Ombuds Report

November 2021 - August 2022
Prepared by Dr. Kathleen Canul, ACS Ombudsperson

ACS Publications Ombudsperson (Ombuds) Role 

The ACS Publications Ombuds role is new as of November 2021 and was established to address questions, problems, and conflicts regarding the peer review process. The concerns may involve Editors, Editorial Advisory Board members, or reviewers, and include issues related to suspected bias or discrimination, handling of the peer review process, mismanagement of appeals, and concerns around scientific misconduct. The Ombuds is an independent, impartial, and confidential resource who works at an informal level, independent of formal organizational structures. Where possible, the Ombuds may also facilitate conversations or offer mediation to resolve disputes. The Ombuds does not investigate complaints about journal content or concerns about scientific misconduct by authors, which need to be brought to the attention of the relevant journal and/or institution. The Ombudsperson also will not participate in formal investigations, have a formal role in the issue resolution, or make binding decisions or mandate policies. 

Outreach Efforts

As a first step in learning about the ACS Publications community, the Ombuds has met with various individuals and units to introduce the role and become familiar with resources within ACS Publications which may assist in the resolution of issues. Additionally, the Ombuds attended the ACS Conference of Editors (May 18-20, 2022) and served on the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Respect (DEIR) panel discussing the function of the Ombuds role. The Ombuds attended the ACS Fall Meeting (from August 20-23, 2022) and introduced the role to Editors at several sessions, and fielded questions at the ACS Publications booth.

Cases

To preserve the privacy of those requesting services, the Ombuds utilization information will be presented in aggregate form. Since January 2022, five Authors have raised concerns with the Ombuds about the review process of submitted papers. Because the number of individuals seeking assistance is still small and to maintain confidentiality, exact numbers will not be reported. All Authors had previously addressed the issue with the Editor of the respective journal. A subset of this group questioned the process that led to the rejection of the paper but did not question the rejection, itself. A subset expressed frustration with the delay in response from the Editors on questions regarding Reviewers and the review process. A subset stated that they have lost faith in the integrity of the review process and stated they will no longer submit to a particular journal. The majority of authors seeking guidance were male-identified. With permission from the Authors, a subset of cases was referred to the ACS Publishing Integrity Office which agreed to look further into the reported concerns. 

Summary

While the Ombuds role is new and those requesting assistance are still few, it appears that these Authors may have concerns related more to the review process than to the outcome and frustration lies in unanswered questions. Delays in Editor response may also fuel the perception that important issues are not addressed. 

No cases, yet, have been reported concerning discrimination or unfair evaluations based on race or gender. Additional outreach to diverse groups is important and recommended to further highlight the Ombuds role and build trust among communities.