Academic Wall of Shame: Athabasca University's "The International Review of Reseach in Open and Distributed Learning" (IRRODL) Journal is a non-equal opportunity and discriminating journal and here is why ...

On April 15th 2015, we submitted a manuscript to "The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning" (IRRODL). The following reasons played a role in selecting this journal for this manuscript: 1) The content was related to the journal, 2) It was open access and we thought a wide range of audience could access the article in case it was published, and 3) We thought we would get a fair treatment for the reason that the journal was listed in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science. However, we ended up with a non-equal and discriminating review process.

Please note that out of 3 reviewers, 2 of them provided decent reviews, and one of them provided a biased review, and the manuscript was initially rejected. When we asked for a change of the biased review, subsequent review (conducted by the Editor Emeritus of the journal) also rejected our manuscript on the grounds of the initial biased review.

I just do not understand how a manuscript is rejected in a journal without a chance for improvement when there are 2 positive reviews and one negative (though biased) review. In addition, the review process seemed to be non-transparent and subjective. Please note that, as academicians, we are spending extreme efforts working on these manuscripts trying to share our findings. In doing so, we are neglecting our family, children, and other hobbies in the name of this sharing. We are also assigning our financial resources in this endeavour. As an example, we paid half of my monthly salary to have this manuscript edited by native speakers of English. I am extremely disappointed after this non-equal and discriminating review process. The point is not publishing this manuscript no matter what in this journal. I am sure we can publish this manuscript elsewhere, but that’s not the point, either. As a movie fan, I embrace quotes from various movies, and here is one of the most favorite of mine from the movie “Any Given Sunday” (1999): “On any given Sunday, you're going to win or you're going to lose. The point is, can you win or lose like a man?” My point is I do not believe journal editors can discriminate against authors and I want to share my disappointment with the world on this page. As the great Dr. Bonk taught us at Indiana University, "I am mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" (from the movie, Network (1976)).

All of the material and e-mail exchange with the journal will be shared on this page and the verdict will be left to the community.

The page will be updated when necessary.

If you have any comments, please share with me through hakantzn{at}yahoo.com, and I will include on this page.

June 24th, 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Co-editor1
To: Authors
Date: June 15th 2015

Dear [Authors]:

We have reached a decision regarding your submission to The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, "[Article Title]".

We regret to inform you that we are declining your offer to publish in the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.

As you will see in the reviewers’ comments below, we feel there are major problems with the paper and/or its relevance for readers of this journal. We hope the reviewers’ comments will be useful in developing and submitting this article elsewhere or for development of your own writing and publishing capacity.

Thank you for the submitting the work to IRRODL for this review.

Sincerely

[Co-editor1], Co-editor, IRRODL
[Titles], Athabasca University
------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer C:

1. Complete, clear, and well-organized presentation: Excellent
Comments: Logical flow of information

2. Significance of the problem: Satisfactory
Comments: The context (Turkey) is relevant to the study.

3. Applicability and interest to the field (relevance beyond case presented): Excellent
Comments: Can apply in different contexts with similar problems

4. Original contribution to open and distance learning: Excellent
Comments: Well researched in the area of e-learning.

5. Description of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate): Excellent
Comments: Relate well with new developments in e-learning theories

6. Literature review demonstrates a clear relationship between problem and ODL and other relevant literature: Satisfactory
Comments: The relationship is apparent more so within the context of the problem. Relevant literature reviewed and key valuables identified.

7. Appropriateness of research design and method: Excellent
Comments: Demonstrates interrelationship between theory, methods, research designs and the knowledge base of the subject.

8. Accurate and useful interpretation: Satisfactory
Comments: The qualitative data has been grouped into similar responses and common patterns identified.

9. Sound argument and analysis: Excellent
Comments: Consistence, clarity and coherence noted.

10. Conclusion describes implications for distance education theory, research and/or practice: Excellent
Comments: Gaps identified for further research, logical flow of arguments and assumptions stated.

Additional comments: Two typing errors on page 8(bertween),page 11 (successfull).

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer D:

1. Complete, clear, and well-organized presentation: Excellent
Comments: The presentation of this manuscript reveals the passion the author(s) had for the study.

2. Significance of the problem: Satisfactory
Comments: The author(s) effectively described the significance of the problem.

3. Applicability and interest to the field (relevance beyond case presented): Satisfactory
Comments: This study has considerable applicability beyond this study...it can certain serve as a preventive tool toward future growth.

4. Original contribution to open and distance learning: Excellent
Comments: The use of qualitative methods puts a new spin on an old topic.

5. Description of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate): Excellent
Comments: Very appropriate approach to the problem.

6. Literature review demonstrates a clear relationship between problem and ODL and other relevant literature: Excellent
Comments: The author(s) presented a through literature review, providing some history facts.

7. Appropriateness of research design and method: Excellent
Comments: The use of qualitative methods to evaluate program effectiveness is idea, as it seeks participants spoken word through their lived experiences. The author appropriately uses interview transcripts from semi structured interviews, documents shared by the distance education centers and information from their web sites as sources to answer the research question identified.

8. Accurate and useful interpretation: Satisfactory
Comments:

9. Sound argument and analysis: Satisfactory
Comments:

10. Conclusion describes implications for distance education theory, research and/or practice: Satisfactory
Comments:

Additional comments:

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer F:

1. Complete, clear, and well-organized presentation: Unsatisfactory
Comments:

2. Significance of the problem: Excellent
Comments:

3. Applicability and interest to the field (relevance beyond case presented): Satisfactory
Comments:

4. Original contribution to open and distance learning: Satisfactory
Comments:

5. Description of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate): Unsatisfactory
Comments:

6. Literature review demonstrates a clear relationship between problem and ODL and other relevant literature: Unsatisfactory
Comments:

7. Appropriateness of research design and method: Not applicable
Comments: Please see the review notes

8. Accurate and useful interpretation: Unsatisfactory
Comments:

9. Sound argument and analysis: Unsatisfactory
Comments:

10. Conclusion describes implications for distance education theory, research and/or practice: Unsatisfactory
Comments:

Additional comments: Please see review notes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Authors
To: Co-editor1
Date: June 15th 2015

Dear [Co-editor1],

Two of the reviewers (Reviewer C and Reviewer D) seem to be extremely satisfied and one of the reviewers seem not to be that much satisfied, and based on these data, you directly rejected the manuscript (without any revision offer)?

Best regards,

Hakan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Co-editor1
To: Authors
Date: June 15th 2015

Hakan,
The two positive reviews were not very complete and so less helpful. We have a very high rate of submissions and only accept the best articles. You might try to resubmit elsewhere.
All the best.
[Co-editor1]

[Co-editor1]
[Titles]
Athabasca University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Authors
To: Co-editor1, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 17th 2015

Dear Editors, Editor Emeritus, and Editorial Board of the IRRODL,

This is Hakan Tüzün, an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey.

We recently submitted a manuscript for possible inclusion in the IRRODL journal. It is titled "[Article Title]" This had been the Ph.D. thesis of a hard-working student of mine ([Student's Name]), and the work had also been overseen by Dr. Uğur Demiray, a prominent figure in Distance Education in Turkey and in the World and founder editor of the TOJDE (Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education) Journal, who was a Doctoral Advisory Committee Member and Doctoral Examining Committee Member for this student. Dr. Demiray praised the quality of the thesis. Dr. Demiray is also cc'ed in this message.

Yesterday we received an e-mail from [Co-editor1] stating that
> we are declining your offer to publish in the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. As you will see in the reviewers’ comments below, we feel there are major problems with the paper and/or its relevance for readers of this journal.

When I examined the reviews, I realized that 2 of the 3 reviewers (Reviewer C and Reviewer D) provided excellent comments. As an example, Reviewer D stated that:
> "The presentation of this manuscript reveals the passion the author(s) had for the study."

You can find reviewers' comments at the end of this message.

The third reviewer (Reviewer F) provided Average to Negative comments (which is fine for a person like myself, who likes challenges and long review reports from reviewers, BUT as long as the comments are substantiated).

After getting the decline, I e-mailed [Co-editor1],
> Two of the reviewers (Reviewer C and Reviewer D) seem to be extremely satisfied and one of the reviewers seem not to be that much satisfied, and based on these data, you directly rejected the manuscript (without any revision offer)?

and he responded back:
> The two positive reviews were not very complete and so less helpful. We have a very high rate of submissions and only accept the best articles. You might try to resubmit elsewhere.

This is still fine. But when I examined the content of the reviewer notes, I noticed that it is full of unsubstantiated and unfair arguments. As an example, the first argument is that
> "There are problems with its English, the paper should be sent to a native proof-reader."

In response to this unsubstantiated and unfair argument: Please note that I spent 6 years in the USA to get my Ph.D. degree from Indiana University. My English exam scores at national and International level (such as TOEFL) are almost perfect. In addition, I am such a meticulous academician that I have our manuscripts translated into English by a professional agency which employs native speaker editors (who are also academicians) from the USA. This manuscript also went through such a process.

The Reviewer F also goes over the line by stating that "It sounds like the paper is written with amateur researchers." This might be the case, but how an Editorial Board of a prestigious Journal lets such an unethical discourse be directed at the authors?

I can respond to other arguments in detail with pages, but I will not waste my and your time. I predict that the third reviewer (Reviewer F) is from Turkey and the reviewer is kind of jealous of the work and/or the reviewer F has issues with the writer(s) of the manuscript. I do not believe the Reviewer F has acted in line with ethics of an academician.

For the reasons stated above, I ask you to consider replacing Reviewer F with another one to get a fair treatment. It might be argued that we are trying to be smart by asking the positive reviewers stay. I am fine with changing all the reviewers, but I only ask for one request: Please do not let any reviewer from Turkey to evaluate our work for the reason that many academicians in this part of the world tend to base their evaluations over unethical practice at times.

Please note that I am a year away from becoming a Full Professor. I am not in a publish or perish mode. I only write good to perfect articles. Our work has impact; for example, the articles I authored were cited 333 times in Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science. You can review them at:
http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~htuzun/html/academic/publications.html

In Google Scholar, I was cited over 1500 times:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VIXTVrMAAAAJ

I am in the Editorial Boards of various Journals, and am also a Field Editor of a Journal. I have reviewed over 100 articles for major journals all over the world. You can review my service at:
http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~htuzun/html/academic/service.html

In sum, I can judge the quality of a manuscript and the quality of a review.

In response to the suggestion, "You might try to resubmit elsewhere," I will respond, I am not a beggar sir. I perceived the IRRODL as a serious Journal. I do not believe a Journal belongs to anybody in the academic community, but it is a product of the community. I am not sure if you are familiar with the infamous TV series "Lost." In many of the episodes, one of the main characters (John Locke) speaks the following phrase: "Don't tell me what to do!" I share the exact same feeling.

If the Journal does not take our request into consideration, We will pursue the following:
1) I will contact the President and the Board of Governors of Athabasca University.
2) I will follow the issue legally at the local (to Journal) and International level (including European Court of Human Rights).
3) I will publicly decry this unfair treatment practice of the IRRODL Journal.
4) I will contact the major index providers where the Journal is indexed (such as Thomson Reuters' Web of Science) and lobby for the removal of the Journal from their indexes because of unfair treatment.

Just a note related to "only accept[ing] the best articles," please read only the Abstract of this recent article:
[aforementioned article link removed for the respect of the work of authors]
Does it look "the best" linguistically and in terms of content to you? If so, I will not argue.

Apologies, if my message is a bit offending, but please note that I have waited for 24 hours to write a neutral message free of emotions.

Please note that authors spend considerable time to write such a manuscript and I believe they need fair treatment.

The reviewers' comments are included at the end of this message. I also attach the Review Notes for your convenience.

Thanks for reading and best regards,

Hakan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Co-editor1
To: Authors, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 18th 2015

Dr Tuzun,
As per your request and your concerns about a possible conflict of interest, we shall arrange for another review of the paper. I shall contact you once the special review has been conducted.
[Co-editor1]

[Co-editor1]
[Titles]
Athabasca University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Co-editor1
To: Authors, Co-editor2, Managing Editor
Date: June 23rd 2015

Prof. Tuzun,
Please find attached a formal review of you submission to IRRODL. I am sorry to inform you that the decision to reject this paper remains. Please advise me if you want me to circulate this review to the list that you copied in your previous email.
Yours
[Co-editor1]

[Titles]
Athabasca University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Co-editor1
To: Authors, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 23rd 2015

Prof. Tuzun,
I have sent you under separate email, a formal review of your submission. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that this reviewer's recommendation was to reject the paper. So I am sorry to inform you that your paper will not be published in IRRODL.
Yours
[Co-editor1]

[Co-editor1]
[Titles]
Athabasca University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Authors
To: Co-editor1, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 24th 2015

> Please advise me if you want me to circulate this review to the list that you copied in your previous email.

Dear Editors,

Thanks for sending the manuscript to another reviewer instead of going with the previous biased review.

I went through the document. However, please note that this is not a review, but recommendations for improvement written on the manuscript (attached to this message as you asked me if it was appropriate to share, and it is).

There are 2 previous decent reviews, and one (the new one you just shared) who suggested improvements. I just do not understand on what ground you reject this manuscript. Can you explain it to us, please? Are you expecting a perfect manuscript to be published in this journal?

Thanks and best regards,

Hakan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Editorial Board Member 1
To: Authors, Co-editor1, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 24th 2015

Dear Prof Hakan,

Thank you for sharing your article submission with the list of editors copied in this email.

I concur with the reviewers recommendation.

On a minor technical point, I would like to note that neither IRRODL nor Athabasca University claim ownership of the articles published in the journal as cited on the copyright page of your article submission. When submitting articles for review in the future, I recommend that you review the copyright notice of the journal concerned before submitting a manuscript. It is not appropriate to cede copyright of your work to Athabasca University in this case.

With kind regards
[Editorial Board Member 1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Authors
To: Co-editor1, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 24th 2015

Dear [Editorial Board Member 1],

Thank you for taking time to read the manuscript. We need a clarification though. Since two of the reviews are positive, and one renewed review is said to be negative (without any review comments, and on a technical note, which seems to conducted by [Editor Emeritus] since the identity of the reviewer was left in the manuscript), and since you are referring to the plural form of reviewer (" I concur with the reviewers recommendation") I thought you were positive; but we need a clarification.

Actually, this exchange is a proof of the fact that human mind and language are such complex structures that they can not be treated as mechanical structures. For that reason even a gifted person with eclectic talents such as yourself, the Founder of [ ] and owner of many other accomplishments and a native speaker of English, cannot articulate his intentions in one shot. That's why I am curious about the question I sent previously, and I am still waiting for an answer for: "Are you expecting a perfect manuscript to be published in this journal?"

Thank you also for pointing to the minor technical note of giving copyright of our work to Athabasca University. This was not a personal choice, and I am not clear which aspect you are referring to (again the ambiguity of the language), but if you are referring to the Athabasca University text and the CC symbol at the end, it is part of the journal template (which I attached). Therefore, if this is problematic, the journal might remove it from the template. I will be happy if I will be a mediator in this process to ease the work of future authors.

Thanks again for taking time to read the manuscript and best regards,

Hakan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Co-editor1
To: Authors, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 24th 2015

Dear Prof Tüzün

I have rejected your paper on the grounds of the last reviewer. This reviewer recommended rejecting the paper, while offering comments in the text to the authors for improvement.

Note that we did not reject the previous reviewer's comments because they were biased as you claim. We sent the paper for further review because of the possible perception of bias, whether true or not. It is only on that basis that we requested a further review.

Yours
[Co-editor1]

Co-Editor IRRODL
[Titles]
Athabasca University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Editor Emeritus
To: Authors, Co-editor1, Managing Editor
Date: June 24th 2015

Dear Prof Tuzun
I was the last reviewer.
Have you never had a paper rejected from a leading academic journal before??? It is NOT the end of the world. The hints provided by the reviewers can be used to improve the paper and then it can be submitted to another journal.
In my 12 years with IRRODL, I don’t think anyone has complained about the reviewers/journal as you have.
Best just to get on with your research, get this article published somewhere, try IRRODL again with new work and always be learning.
Good luck
[Editor Emeritus]

[Editor Emeritus], Ph.D.
Editor Emeritus
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning
Professor, Athabasca University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Authors
To: Editor Emeritus, Co-editor1, Managing Editor
Date: June 24th 2015

Dear [Editor Emeritus]

> Have you never had a paper rejected from a leading academic journal
> before??? It is NOT the end of the world.

Yes, I know, it is NOT the end of the world. And, Yes, I had papers rejected from a leading academic journal (and even minor academic journals) previously. Our point is, we have not been rejected from a leading academic journal in this kind of non-equal and discriminating manner.

> The hints provided by the
> reviewers can be used to improve the paper and then it can be submitted
> to another journal.

(As I indicated in a previous message), I am not sure if you are familiar with the infamous TV series "Lost." In many of the episodes, one of the main characters (John Locke) speaks the following phrase: "Don't tell me what to do!" I share the exact same feeling.

In addition, two reviewers (the majority) were not able to write any major problems. Why do I need to submit elsewhere?

> In my 12 years with IRRODL, I don’t think anyone has complained about
> the reviewers/journal as you have.

In my 16 years of publishing, I have not seen any journal providing a non-equal opportunity to its authors and discriminating in such a way, let alone any "leading academic journal."

I just do not understand why an editor at the Emeritus level is surprised when an educated individual is defending one's rights? I am also surprised if any of the prior oppressed authors did not rise against such a practice.

> Best just to get on with your research, get this article published
> somewhere, try IRRODL again with new work and always be learning.

Please note that we have submitted another manuscript to the journal yesterday. This was already planned previously. I will follow the fate of this manuscript closely.

Related to "always be learning": Please see the section "WHAT I LIKE" on
http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~htuzun/html/about_HakMan.html

The first item is "Learning anything new." This item is there for 15 years and it is still valid. I also ask you to "always be learning"

> Good luck

Please note that I felt myself really as David against Goliath in this whole process. This is just not right, and you know what I mean. If you will be able to live with the shame of this, I also wish good luck to you.

Best regards,

Hakan Tüzün, Ph.D.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Authors
To: Co-editor1, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 24th 2015

Dear Respected Academicians,

I put together the details of our IRRODL review experience on the following page to share with the world and other stakeholders:
http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~htuzun/html/irrodl.html

You can also access this page from my homepage:
http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~htuzun/index.html

From my point of view, exchanging e-mails with the journal from this point on related to the fate of this manuscript seems to be useless. I will follow other practices to defend our rights.

I want to share the following excerpt with you that I shared with [Editor Emeritus] in response to a separate message sent to me: "Please note that I felt myself really as David against Goliath in this whole process. This is just not right, and you know what I mean." You can follow the details of this exchange on the same page.

On a separate note; whenever I have time, I will share some examples of the so-called "the best articles accepted" in the IRRODL to challenge your claim, but for now I do not intend to waste more of my time.

Thanks and best regards,

Hakan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Editorial Board Member 1
To: Authors, Co-editor1, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 25th 2015

Dear Prof Hakan,

Thanks for sharing the link. I may have missed this, but I don't see a link to the original paper you submitted for review on your site. Visitors to your site would benefit from reading the artefact in question.

With kind regards
[Editorial Board Member 1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Authors
To: Co-editor1, Co-editor2, Editor Emeritus, Editorial Board Members, Managing Editor
Date: June 25th 2015

Dear [Editorial Board Member 1],

Thank you for sharing your suggestion. We were already planning to share the manuscript, but we waited on purpose for the reason that it was not published yet.

But after your suggestion, we re-considered this, and thought that what the heck, if the world is open, go for it. Besides; we are open, transparent, and we have nothing to hide.

I am still curious if you were positive or negative when you said ("I concur with the reviewers recommendation.") A clarification will be appreciated.

With warmest regards,

p.s. Please note that I already presented the issue to the attention of Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the President of Athabasca University, and Board of Governors of Athabasca University.

Hakan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FaceBook message exchange with a graduate student
Date: June 25th 2015

Student: Hocam merhaba, ben de bir film repliği ile katkıda bulunmak istiyorum. (Sir, I 'd like to contribute with a movie quote.)

Student: “What are you looking at? You are a bunch of fucking assholes. you know why? You don’t have the guts to be what you want to be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fucking fingers and say: “That’s the bad guy”. So, what does this make you? Good? You are not good. you just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, i don’t have that problem. Me, i always tell the truth, even when i lie. So, say good night to the bad guy. Come on, the last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on, make the way for the bad guy. There’s a bad guy coming through! Better get out of his way!”
-scarface.

Student: Akademinin tony montanasısınız. (You are the Tony Montana of the academy.)

Hakan: :)

Hakan: Şu lafı duymak bile o kadar ugraşıya değdi, hiçbir şey çıkmasa da gam yemem. (It is worth the effort to hear this, even though nothing comes out of this)

Student:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal Reflection
Date: June 26th 2015

I forgot to include a thought in the last message I sent to the Editor Emeritus and Editors of the IRRODL Journal. I had asked in a previous message : "Please do not let any reviewer from Turkey to evaluate our work for the reason that many academicians in this part of the world tend to base their evaluations over unethical practice at times." I realized that I was unfair to this part of the world for the reason that the Editors exemplified that unfairness, unethicalness and the so-called "middle-eastern mindset" could actually exist anywhere, even in the modern Western Society. As the Editor Emeritus has asked, I am "always be learning" and I appreciate them for teaching this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------