Preprint: Balancing Transparency and Data Protection in Academic Publishing
The Case of Editorial Correspondence Disclosure on Preprint Servers
Preprint:
Yue Liu, Balancing Transparency and Data Protection in Academic Publishing: The Case of Editorial Correspondence Disclosure on Preprint Servers, Doi: 10.20944/preprints202508.1193.v2 Website: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1193/v2
Paradoxically, it is precisely these privacy protection regulations that embolden academic journals to summarily and unjustifiably reject manuscripts presenting disruptive, innovative ideas. In such a regulatory environment, all journals tacitly understand and collectively shelter behind data protection laws, enabling editorial arbitrariness to flourish without accountability. This widespread dynamic has become entrenched in the culture of scientific publishing, forming a self-perpetuating system that resists reform. In effect, if a legal statute consistently fosters a climate hostile to scientific advancement and discourages the open exchange of paradigm-challenging scholarship, then the statute itself warrants abolition.
Supplementary File
Background and Correspondence
This supplementary file documents key email exchanges that precipitated research into the interplay between data protection law and editorial transparency in scientific publishing.
Email Correspondence
Our Response (August 14, 2025, 01:30)
Dear Mr. Shu and the Preprints.org Editorial Team,
Thank you for your response regarding my submitted comment. I appreciate your explanation of your policy regarding editorial correspondence confidentiality. However, I respectfully disagree with the rationale for rejecting my comment and would like to present several counterarguments for your consideration.
Transparency and Academic Accountability
The scholarly community increasingly recognizes that transparency in peer review processes serves the greater good of scientific advancement. While traditional publishing maintains confidentiality policies, the fundamental question remains: whose interests are primarily being protected? Research indicates that editorial transparency, rather than confidentiality, often strengthens the quality and accountability of peer review [1 - 4].
When editorial decisions are made fairly and objectively, there should be no concern about public disclosure. In fact, transparency can benefit editors by demonstrating the rigor and fairness of their review processes. The concerns about "confidentiality" often stem from authors' potential embarrassment rather than legitimate editorial protection needs [5, 6, 7].
Authors' Rights to Transparency
If authors themselves choose to disclose review correspondence, this represents an informed consent decision about their own work. The traditional argument that confidentiality protects authors becomes invalid when the authors explicitly waive this protection. Scientific accountability requires that researchers take responsibility for their scholarly discourse, including review processes [9 - 12].
Educational Value for the Scientific Community
Publishing editorial correspondence serves important educational purposes by:
Providing real-world examples of review processes for early-career researchers
Documenting patterns in editorial decision-making that can inform future submissions
Creating a transparent record that enables systematic study of peer review practices [3, 13 – 15]
Precedent in Academic Publishing
Many prestigious journals are moving toward greater transparency. Nature Communications now publishes peer review reports alongside accepted articles, and journals like PLOS ONE have implemented policies limiting confidential comments to editors. This trend reflects growing recognition that transparency enhances rather than undermines editorial integrity [3, 4, 10].
https://www.peeref.com/note-events/reviewerroulette
Scientific Discourse and Error Correction
The scientific method depends on open critique and correction of errors [12]. When editorial decisions contain flaws, transparent discussion enables the community to learn from these instances and improve future practices [14, 15]. Suppressing such discussions, even when initiated by authors themselves, may inadvertently perpetuate problematic review practices.
Recommendation
I respectfully suggest that Preprints.org consider revising its comment policy to allow authors to share editorial correspondence related to their own work, provided they explicitly consent to such disclosure. This would align with emerging best practices in scholarly publishing while maintaining appropriate protections for genuinely confidential matters.
======
References
[1] Moving peer review transparency from process to praxis, 2019, https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.480, https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.480
[2] Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4
[3] Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260558
[4] Transparent peer review for all, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33056-8
[5] Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035600
[6] 4 ways to increase peer review transparency to foster greater trust in the process, 2020, https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/ways-increase-peer-review-transparency-trust/
[7] Reviewer Roulette, https://www.peeref.com/note-events/reviewerroulette
[9] Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process, https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html
[10] Our editorial policies, https://www.nature.com/ncomms/for-reviewers/reviewer-policies
[11] Yue Liu, Scientific Accountability: The Case for Personal Responsibility in Academic Error Correction, Qeios, Preprint, 2025, https://doi.org/10.32388/M4GGKZ
[12] Cargo Cult Science, From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974, https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
[13] Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.2
[14] Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials
[15] Liu, Yue, The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research (August 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5376778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5376778
========================================
“Unlike fiction writers who may use pseudonyms, scientists publish under their real names, provide institutional affiliations, and include contact information specifically to enable direct communication about their work. This transparency reflects the understanding that scientific claims carry personal responsibility.“
Yue Liu, Scientific Accountability: The Case for Personal Responsibility in Academic Error Correction, Qeios, Preprint, 2025, https://doi.org/10.32388/M4GGKZ
Supplementary Materials
“It is the unsaid rule in publication to systematically avoid criticizing established figures, journals, and misconducts committed by the majority. To ensure self-correcting rather than maintaining the academic silence that protects established paradigms, the scientific community must systematically document cases where criticism of established work faces resistance, as such documentation "is not good to make improvement" when it remains hidden. Creating public databases of editorial bias cases, reviewer misconduct, and institutional resistance to error correction would help the community learn from these problems“
Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials
The suppression of minority viewpoints is often justified by claims that these perspectives represent "low probability" events that are likely to be false. However, this logic fails to account for the fact that truly innovative scientific discoveries are, by definition, low-probability events from the perspective of existing paradigms. The history of science is replete with examples of revolutionary discoveries that were initially rejected by peer reviewers and journal editors.
Yue Liu, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1
“I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”