Special Issues - are they valuable or not?

Special issue in scientific journals focus on a particular topic and often have guest editors.

They might provide an opportunity to publish papers on things that usually aren't popular or don't get much attention. There was, for example, a special issue in the journal Healthcare (MDPI) on 'ME/CFS – the Severely and Very Severely Affected.'
Healthcare | Special Issue : ME/CFS – the Severely and Very Severely Affected

But there is also a lot of critique to this approach. If a paper provides sound and valuable information, it usually doesn't need a special issue to get published. Special issues often seem like a way to lower standards, a tool used by open-acces (and often predatory) publishers to get more submissions and payments. The researchers can get an easy and fast publication, the publisher gets a lot of money while the literature is tainted with low quality publications.

Some have noted that standards for special issues are often lower, for example in handling peer review. Here's an example by James Heathers:

The Hindawi Files. Part 2: Hindawi - by James Heathers

I was curious and checked the special issue on ME/CFS mentioned. It seems that 4/25 papers had less than 20 days between submission (the authors submit their paper) and revision (the editor suggests a revision based on peer review). Here are the links:

1 https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1290
2 https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/2/106
3 https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/8/4/406
4 https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/5/568

Do you think this is possible or does it suggest peer review might not have taken place?

 

The publishing date of those papers range from October 2021 to September 2021. Does this mean that they published papers along the way instead of gathering them for a spesial issue? The latter might be a thing of the past.

The first paper is by Ron Davis.

 

In general, I don’t mind the concept of gathering papers on a single topic. But it’s unacceptable if it comes at the cost of quality peer review.

Peer review and editorial quality assurance is terrible in general, so there’s an argument to be made that it doesn’t really make a difference. I’m not sure I would support the argument, though..

 

I’m not sure on the analogy

the bit that is missing from it is whether said special issue is planned ahead enough ie one done deliberately to try and catch all the issues together (even if some might have been papers that would/could have been submitted earlier) vs one that I’m can’t use my brain to think of the alternative

most academics will have lots of other obligations in their job not just research, which I think is supposed to be 40% of time used for a standard post (ie not a reader or a post with a specified higher teaching load) , then 40% teaching and the rest assigned administrative roles. But as you can imagine that isn’t spread evenly so eg teaching time will tend to be linked to terms (as does much admin).

There wi be certain times of year when most staff get dragged into some sort of heavy duty peak time thing. Like exam paper marking and moderation boards.

other times such as the run-in to easter holidays I’ve certainly seen at least with some departments most staff are exhausted and holding on to the light at end of tunnel of term ending. Because any business that requires committee sign off is going to struggle in the summer term (then summer break) so ‘projects/developments’ actually get jammed into those two terms.

Those with duties to do with admissions will have confirmation and clearing and other peak and more quiet times for decisions on offers/interviews/running open days. Or if running a course or enrollment the run up to start of term you’ve a lot of writing and organising etc.

That’s before you might add in academic posts with a day-job like being a clinician which probably has its own peaks and clinics and funding deadlines etc

anyway if an issue is being done to give an important area a really good chance then there is the possibility that someone could just pick ‘a good time’ and alongside that be giving a really good heads up for say a year in advance (or whatever a good Lee time is) . They could also surely be asking some of the peer reviewers they want to calendarise that promise at that point so they know they will have the time set aside to do it when it comes through.

there is a big difference surely between a one-off and the day to day where you get in something unexpected or from one of a list of areas snd have to find a peer reviewer vs having set a topic ? Particularly I guess if you compare a journal unexpectedly getting something on a niche interest vs collecting together with fair warning all those who have said interest? And if it is an industry-based thing / it’s the type of thing that means lots of those in it might have similar roles with similar peaks then I can imagine a theoretical situation where it lands in the perfect time that people can get their head down to be doing these tasks vs trying to fit it around marking papers and a busy diary?

 

There is currently a special issue on ME/CFS in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences (MDPI) titled: 'Advances in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), 2nd Edition'.
IJMS | Special Issue : Advances in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), 2nd Edition

Guest editor is Vincent Lombardi which may some may recognise as the first author of the problematic XMRV paper.

 

For me it's hard to see why this approach would makes sense for journals and scientists unless it involves lowering standards for publication.

 

You’re probably right.

If they wanted to create more of a focus on a topic, they could take a public stance that they would put all papers on a certain topic at the top of the pile. Kind of like the fast track at airports - you go through the same steps, you just skip the lines.

 

This one?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.334.6063.1636-a

 

In a way, the lower quality standards also leads to some useful stuff that wouldn't usually get published getting published. Ie. I doubt Whitney Dafoe's manuscript would have been published without it. And that manuscript, while a n=1 experience etc. has been an invaluable resource to people with extremely severe ME to get understood.

 

I share your concerns with profit grabbing and predatory practices. Do non-profit journals like PLOS do special editions too?

 

Peer review and revision in three weeks imperfectly possible. It would normally be less if I was involved (I am an editor and peer reviewer). I generally do peer review within 48 hours. I am not sure what Heathers is going on about. A lot of journal editors are hideously slow but there is no need.

On the other hand, I agree that special issues are mostly a way to get more income. I get asked to contribute to these about every other week. There is an ME/CFS special issue open at present but the publisher wants well over $1000 for a submission. That is both crazy and unethical.

 

But first the editor has to view the manuscript, decide if it should go out for peer review or if it is a desk rejection. Then he should find peer reviewers, some might not respond or refuse. Then if you do your peer review within 48 hours, it still needs to go back to the editor who might wait until a second peer reviewer responds. Then if he has all the review he wants, he has to read and decide what to tell the authors etc.

So I suspect 20 days is really fast but perhaps not impossible based on your comments. Maybe Heathers meant that this happened 62 times in that Hindawi journal is impossible.

 

On the other hand, if revision within 20 days is perfectly possible, it is quite incredible that some authors have to wait many months or even more than a year before getting a response from editors.

 

MDPI's approach to special issues is quite well known & has always struck me as another example of borderline predatory methods from that publisher. A couple of blog posts you might be interested in:

"Is MDPI a predatory publisher?"

"My experience as a reviewer for MDPI"

 

From a process management perspective, it doesn’t strike me as an impossible task to do that in 20 days. In the example below the days are time elapsed, not time spent on the task.

1. 1 day - initial screening for rejects
2. 2 days - editor review
3. 2 days - peer review
4. 2 days - editor review of peer review
5. X days - author review and changes

Repeat as many times as needed.

A good draft with no changes could he done in 7 days. An okay draft with limited changes could be done in 1+2*6+X days.

If the editor has a backlog or they don’t have reviewers lined up, things will take more time. I would not be surprised if there’s a lot of manual admin work involved, although emails requesting peer reviewers could easily be automated. At the very least, they could be copy-pasted from a list or sent as blind copies (BC).

 

It is for most editors and reviewers but it needn't be. One thing I always respected about my old head of section, David Isenberg, was that if you gave him document it would be under your office door, fully annotated or signed, by the next morning. There are groups of people sufficiently committed to work that way. For the Qeios journal I use peer review and acceptance is all over and the Fat Lady has sung by ten days.

There are two sorts of people in this world...

 

That paper said only 30% of patients reported PEM as their main symptom. Doesn't sound right to me.

 

Thread on it here:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-com...me-cfs-patients-2021-chang-et-al.22603/page-2