• Philip C Grammaticos.
• Hell J Nucl Med. 2006 Sep 1;9(3):154-5.

AbstractIt is the duty of the editor to communicate with the authors who submit their scientific work for publication. The question arises as to the best way to perform this communication. The goal is to publish papers that would make their authors proud and the readers of the journal, satisfied. This goal is expressed with honesty, kindness, politeness, diplomacy and when the editor communicated with authors from other Countries, the advice of a person familiar with the traditions of these Countries may be welcome. The unpleasant editor's duty to inform the authors of their paper being rejected, can be expressed either by writing a brief straight forward letter or by giving a more detailed answer or finally, by explaining to the authors their errors in a detailed manner, in other words, by giving them advice and consultation. In his reply to the authors whose paper has been rejected, the editor may touch a sensitive part of their behavior. Authors may consider their paper as "their intellectual child". Some times authors make unacceptable mistakes that may or may not be revealed by the reviewers. Explaining in detail errors and thus counseling the authors, is hard work for the editor but not always appreciated by the authors. The value of counseling and teaching has been emphasized even by ancient philosophers but nowadays enthusiasm in learning is sometimes lacking. Is there a solution to the above? Perhaps if "the instructions to authors" of a journal specified clearly the "submission terms" for accepting a paper for publication, then the authors could be self-evaluated and perhaps all parties concerned would be happier.

18 keywords...

hide…