A valued peer reviewer gives a reminder

This weblog has never before quoted any of its peer reviewers, but it may be beneficial to draw these words -- written by one of JIPLP's longest-serving and most valued peer reviewers --  to the attention of prospective authors:
"... this article submission indicates that the suggested authors' guidelines need to be amended to make it clear that the journal's title is meaningful and not just a marketing ploy.  I say that because  ... many so-called "specialist" journals pay only minimal attention to their own titles, and I would not be surprised to find out that [name of author] (and, as is more likely, his [name of co-author]) were following ... practice in essentially ignoring the journal title ...."
It may seem surprising, but JIPLP receives a considerable number of submissions that do not fit within the scope of "intellectual property law and practice". Some are picked up and rejected before the peer process commences; others are less blatant and are not detected until they fall into the peer reviewer's hands.

Recent articles include submissions which are apparently about the protection of geographical indications but which turn out to be more like advertisements for the beneficial properties of the product itself; economic analyses which are richly encrusted with algebra but have little or no law at all; political diatribes and philosophical speculations.

Please remember: our core readership consists of people who work in the field of intellectual property, whether as practitioners, rights managers, judges, teachers, business consultants or administrators. If you are thinking of sending us a piece for publication and cannot realistically imagine any of the categories of person listed here reading your piece while they are at work, or at least working, as a way of enriching their understanding -- JIPLP may not be the right place for your contribution.

No comments:

Post a Comment