Examples of poor performance by commercial publishers
I am sure we have plenty of examples. I have published many tens of papers with publishers of all types, and have some complaints. But my experience with Springer on the latest paper has been so unpleasant that I intend to avoid them in future, as much as possible.
Here is the timeline, for a paper that took a very long time in review before final acceptance:
- 6 June contacted by Swathi Alagesan asking for source files, which I provided immediately.
- 7 June contacted by Sujatha Jaganmohan: "While processing your article we found that we have not received the bib file for your paper, could you please provide the bib file to proceed further.”
This was wrong, I had supplied it. So I explained that.
-
8 June contacted by springerauthorquery@springeronline.com asking me to deal with reprints, copyright form, etc. I could not see any way to alter the form (which is allowed by most publishers to my knowledge). I asked "I would like to make alterations to the copyright form. The site listed does not seem to allow that. How do I do it?” Email forwarded by Swathi Alagesan to Andreas Vogel.
-
12 June Andreas Vogel: "I have forwarded your eMail to the publishing editor who should be able to help you here. May I ask which part of the statement seems not to be fitting to you?”
I replied that I could not even read the copyright form offline (there was no option given to do this in 3) above).
- 15 June Andreas Vogel: "I forwarded your information to Martina Bihn, the publishing editor of this journal, who is currently absent on business travels and I fear that she had not yet found time to take care of this.
Please find attached the Text of the copyright transfer for your information. Please excuse that you will have to enlarge the pdf up to 300% to make it readable; sadly, I had no better version of this online file available.”
It turned out that the form was for another journal, and even if it is a generic one, was very hard to read. However I replied that day:
"The one you pointed me to is not the standard one - it mentions China Geosciences in the first article. Assuming that the rest of the form is standard, I want to change 3(b)(b) (which talks about embargo on AAM) as follows:
— replace “12 months after first publication (Embargo Period)” with “immediately on acceptance”.
Please confirm acceptance of these terms and explain how I can navigate the online system without accepting the default agreement it presents me.”
-
20 June I requested an update from Andreas Vogel. No reply.
-
9 July I requested an update from Martina Bihn and Andreas Vogel. Auto-reply from Bihn: "Between 12 June and 23 July 2018, I will be absent from the office due to business travels. Your e-mails will be read. Please bear with me, if my response will be delayed during this very busy conference season.”
-
7 August I requested an update from Martina Bihn. Auto-reply: "I will be absent from the office until mid-August, with limited access to e-mails. In case you need assistance very urgently, please contact Judith Kripp, e-mail judith.kripp@springer.com.”
-
7 August I forwarded my original email from June to Judith Kripp. So far (11 August), no reply.