Nearly two dozen editors of a mathematics journal have resigned after its publisher removed the top editor and implemented a multiple review system, “running roughshod over the standard practices of the refereeing process in mathematics.”
Of the 31 members of the Communications in Algebra editorial board, 23 signed a March 10 resignation letter sent to Taylor & Francis, which publishes the journal. In the letter, the editors said the publisher “unilaterally” implemented a system in which more than one reviewer would be expected to look over a paper.
The peer review process in mathematics is more labor-intensive than for other topics, the editors said, including “not only an assessment of the impact and significance of the results but also a line-by-line painstaking check for correctness of the results. This process is often quite time-consuming and makes referees a valuable commodity.” The letter continues: “Doubling the number of expected reviews will quickly either deplete the pool of willing reviewers or vastly dilute the quality of their reviews, and both of these are unacceptable outcomes.”
Communications in Algebra is the latest to join our Mass Resignations List, which includes walkouts and resignations at more than 50 journals since 2023.
The editors wrote they expected the publisher to “drastically increase” the size of the editorial board to accommodate the change, which “does not address the problem at all,” since referees are experts outside the editorial board.
Taylor & Francis ousted the former editor-in-chief, Scott Chapman, in a “cloak-and-dagger removal” in early March without consulting with the board, the editors wrote. Chapman, a mathematics professor at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, declined to comment further, but told us the letter “speaks for itself.”
James Coykendall, a founding editor of the Journal of Commutative Algebra, was brought on as an associate editor at Communications in Algebra in part to assist with the transition to a multiple reviews system, he told Retraction Watch. He and Chapman proposed a “quick opinion” substitute for one of the full reviews, which he said the publisher agreed was an “acceptable solution.”
“In hindsight, though, perhaps they were not [agreeable], as Scott was told shortly thereafter that his contract with Communications in Algebra would not be renewed,” said Coykendall, professor of mathematical and statistical sciences at Clemson University in South Carolina. He also noted Taylor & Francis did not consult with the rest of the editorial board during this time.
The journal’s homepage still lists Chapman as editor but has already removed the names of the associate editors who resigned, including Coykendall. Papers submitted to the journal are first appraised by the editor, then “if found suitable for further consideration,” are peer-reviewed by independent referees, according to the website.
Alan Logan, a mathematician and referee for several mathematics journals, told us the editors were correct in their assessment of the review process for the subject. He also noted several leading mathematics journals will request “quick opinions” of experts to decide whether the paper should get an in-depth review.
The math field “actively deals with the reproducibility crisis in other subjects by ensuring papers are complete and correct. This is time consuming,” Logan, an assistant professor in the TransiT Research Hub and the Centre for Sustainable Road Freight at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, told us.
A spokesperson for Taylor & Francis told us they “strongly believe that the journal’s updated review process is in the best interests of research quality and integrity.”
“Ensuring that every published article has been fully reviewed by at least two peers is standard practice for all Taylor & Francis Mathematics and Statistics journals and common across academic publishing,” the spokesperson said.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].