While I am re-writing our PING study to become a substantial target article, John is sending it to various journals in the mean time to poke about their editorial biases. Here’s a recent reply, which was thankfully quite up front about the bias:
Rosemary Hopcroft has sent you a message. Please click ‘Reply’ to send a direct response
Dear Dr Fuerst,
This manuscript addresses a politically sensitive issue that I would prefer not to include in Frontiers in Evolutionary Sociology and Biosociology.
Unfortunately, I have to inform you that your manuscript “Genetic ancestry, cognitive ability, and socioeconomic outcomes” cannot be accepted for publication in Frontiers in Sociology, section Evolutionary Sociology and Biosociology.
The reason for this decision is:
Ethical issues were identified in this manuscript that prevent further review or publication.
I am sorry to reject this manuscript but it addresses a politically sensitive issue that I would prefer not to appear in Frontiers in Evolutionary Sociology and Biosociology.
PLEASE NOTE: Resubmission of any rejected manuscripts to a Frontiers Journal/Specialty must be accompanied by a section in the cover letter addressing the reasons for previous rejection and highlighting subsequent changes. Failure to do so can result in rejection before review.
Please click here to access this manuscript directly:
(If clicking on the link doesn’t work, try copying and pasting it into your browser.)
At Frontiers, improving peer review has always been a priority. Our unique system is engineered to be rigorous, yet at the same time efficient, collaborative, transparent and fair. To help achieve our goal of offering the best open-access publishing experience, we would appreciate it if you could take two minutes to complete the following survey on your experience with Frontiers Collaborative Review: SOME OTHER URL
With best regards,
Specialty Chief Editor,