Could Homer Simpson Be the Editor of a Fishery Journal?

I spoke recently with a colleague who described his experiences with one of the editors of a well-respected international fishery journal. My colleague's comments were of considerable interest to me because I and my co-authors have had similar, but more protracted experiences with the same editor.

Rather than name the editor, or the journal, I merely present this x-ray image, which I think it is appropriately diagnostic.

My colleague's experiences are these. He submitted a manuscript, for which revisions were requested. The nature of the editor's reponses were such that he believed he was "in." He revised the manuscript in response to the comments of anonymous reviewers and the editor. He resubmitted the revised manuscript, which the editor returned with additional, trivial comments and instructions for revision. My colleague again revised the manuscript and resubmitted it. The editor again returned it with more, trivial comments and instructions for revision. My colleague then did the right thing. He withdrew the manuscript from consideration by that journal.

I say he did the right thing for this reason: my co-authors and I have had the same experience with this editor, with three exceptions.

First, we are in the fifth round of dealing with his ever changing, often factually-incorrect comments.

Second, he lost one of our revisions, which we had to resubmit. (Our fault, not his!)

Third, one purpose of our manuscript was to clarify a term commonly used in fishery science, but which enjoys no precise meaning. We operationalized the term and put it on firm footing. However, after several revisions, the editor became concerned the term had no clear meaning- our point exactly- and he suggested that we (including he) co-author a paper discussing this matter, which then we could reference in our original manuscript, facilitating its publication. Talk about a novel way to get a publication: hold a manuscript hostage until the authors let you (the editor) in on the game.

My co-authors want to stay the course because we now have four plus revisions and well over a year and a half invested in the manuscript. They believe, this time, we're really, really close. Not like last time when we were merely "really close." I'm not gonna hold my breathe.This is all so unfortunate.

The founding editor of the journal in question has done an excellent job of establishing it as a source of important fishery-related science. The journal's impact factor has climbed steadily in recent years due to his efforts. Based on discussions with colleagues, including those referenced above, there is a growing number of persons who will never (or never again) submit manuscripts to that journal. This cannot possibly contribute in any positive way to the journal's reputation or impact factohere is the rest of it.