When Academic Publishing Becomes a Game of Metrics: A Case Study in Administrative Absurdity
When Academic Publishing Becomes a Game of Metrics: The “Game Rules” of References in SCI Journals
根本没有送外审，投稿马上给出修改意见。按要求修改后，没有送审马上拒稿。是什么意思，是在推销自己得期刊吗？是表示自己的期刊要求有多么严格吗？看看期刊对参考文献的要求吧！
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material，Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials，2024， 593, 171850 ; ( The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film – Part 2: The difference between film and material，Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, Supplementarial file)
Liu, Yue, From Academic Research to Academic Games: How Modern Science Lost its Way (October 31, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5684424 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5684424
Gemini：
Here is an English commentary article based on the email and the situation you described, analyzing the absurdity of the journal’s demands and incorporating the provided references.
When Academic Publishing Becomes a Game of Metrics: A Case Study in Administrative Absurdity
The peer-review process has long been considered the gold standard of scientific publishing—a rigorous crucible where research is evaluated purely on its scientific merit, methodology, and contribution to human knowledge. However, an increasing number of researchers are discovering that modern academic publishing has devolved into something far less noble: a bureaucratic game of metric manipulation.
Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing (September 03, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5436920 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5436920, Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing, Sep 03, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Academic Publishing Mythology: When Quality Control Becomes Quality Obstruction (September 12, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5478626 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5478626
A glaring example of this phenomenon recently occurred with a submission to the journal Surface Engineering. The author submitted a manuscript detailing the wave mechanics of microwave absorption films. Instead of sending the paper out for technical peer review, the journal’s editorial office immediately issued a “Revise” decision. Yet, a closer look at the editor’s email reveals that this was not a revision based on scientific critique, but rather a “Mandatory Administrative Checklist” prior to any technical review.
The author meticulously complied with the journal’s exhausting formatting demands, only to have the paper immediately rejected upon resubmission—again, without ever being sent to external reviewers.
What does this behavior signify? Is the journal trying to market itself? Is it attempting to project an illusion of extreme rigorousness? An analysis of the journal’s demands, particularly regarding references, reveals a much more cynical reality: it is a blatant attempt to game the system.
The Absurdity of the “Mandatory Checklist”
The email from Surface Engineering contains several red flags that highlight how far some journals have strayed from actual science. The most egregious demands involve the blatant manipulation of citations:
Forced Recency for Impact Factor: The journal explicitly demands: “Authors MUST add several new references from 2022-2023... for it to have any archival value the references must be updated.” Science is built on foundational truths, whether a paper was published in 1923 or 2023. Forcing authors to cite papers from the last two years is not about “archival value”; it is a well-known tactic to artificially inflate the journal’s (and its publishing network’s) Impact Factor.
The “Database Quota” Nonsense: The editor states: “No more than 15% of the references can be from any single database... we support all publishers and not just Elsevier.” This is an astonishingly unscientific demand. Researchers cite papers based on relevance to their topic, not to fulfill an arbitrary diversity quota among publishing monopolies. Penalizing an author because highly relevant literature happens to be hosted on ScienceDirect is administrative overreach at its finest.
The Thinly Veiled Threat: The editor adds, “I am sure you want your paper to receive citations too.” In the context of demanding diverse database citations, this reads less like helpful advice and more like a transactional ultimatum.
Furthermore, the journal demands a similarity report not exceeding 5%—an unrealistically strict threshold for scientific papers where standard experimental methodologies and chemical nomenclatures inherently trigger plagiarism software. Finally, capping a scientific title at exactly 10 words reduces the nuance of academic communication to the level of clickbait.
From Academic Research to Academic Games
This incident perfectly encapsulates the thesis presented in the upcoming paper, “From Academic Research to Academic Games: How Modern Science Lost its Way” (Liu, 2025). When editors act as metric-obsessed gatekeepers rather than facilitators of scientific discourse, the entire ecosystem suffers.
By issuing a “Revise” decision before peer review, the journal artificially keeps its official “rejection rate” metrics favorable while forcing authors to do free formatting labor. When the author jumps through the hoops and is subsequently rejected without peer review, it becomes clear that the journal is not evaluating science; it is managing a portfolio.
Fortunately, true scientific merit eventually finds its way to the light. The paper in question, which was subjected to these absurd administrative games, was later successfully published in a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials under the title “Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material” (Liu et al., 2024).
Conclusion
The case of Surface Engineering serves as a cautionary tale for the academic community. When a journal prioritizes citation bartering, database quotas, and arbitrary formatting over the physical mechanisms and scientific truths presented in a manuscript, it ceases to be a platform for science. It becomes merely a player in an “academic game.”
It is time for the scientific community to push back against editorial offices that hold manuscripts hostage over administrative technicalities. Science should be judged by its reproducibility, logic, and innovation—not by whether an author managed to source their references from seven different corporate databases.
References:
Liu, Yue; Liu, Ying; Drew, Michael G. B. (2024). Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 593, 171850. (See also: The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film – Part 2: The difference between film and material, Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, Supplemental file).
Liu, Yue. (October 31, 2025). From Academic Research to Academic Games: How Modern Science Lost its Way. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5684424 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5684424
2023年09月09日 22:35 (星期六）
Surface Engineering
Ref.: SUR8054
236534920
Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption Films: Part 2 - Distinguishing Film from Material
Surface Engineering
Dear Prof. Liu,
We now have referees’ comments on the above paper. I am pleased to tell you that the work is of interest, but regret to say that the paper is not considered suitable in its present form for publication in Surface Engineering. The reasons are detailed in the comments below.
You will see that a number of general and specific points are mentioned which necessitate extensive rewriting of the paper.
Please consider how you wish to proceed. If you are able to revise the paper extensively, to deal in full with all the points mentioned, we shall be willing to consider the position further.
To submit a revision, go to https://rp.tandfonline.com/submission/flow?submissionId=236534920&step=1. If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.
If you have any questions or technical issues, please contact the journal’s editorial office at YSUE-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk.
When resubmitting, please provide a list of changes and, where appropriate, respond to each point which has been raised. You should upload this response as a separate file during the resubmission process. Please ensure that you supply a text file prepared according to the specification in the instructions to authors (SEE IMPORTANT NOTES ON LANGUAGE AND EQUATIONS BELOW) and a high resolution image file of each figure. Failure to do this may result in a delay in the typesetting of your paper. Please note that it is not permitted to submit a PDF file of the revised manuscript at this stage.
Please note that manuscripts will be automatically withdrawn if a revised version has not been submitted within 90 days of this invitation.
With regards
T S Sudarshan, Ph.D
Editor-in-chief
Surface Engineering
Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
MANDATORY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS TO AUTHOR PRIOR TO TECHNICAL REVIEW. THiS CHECKLIST MUST BE COMPLETED FULLY AND ATTACHED TO THE SUBMISSION. PLEASE READ EACH LINE. THIS HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER AFTER SEEING 1000’s OF PAPERS WITH COMMON MISTAKES
FORMAT
Please make sure that your paper is arranged with the following section headings - abstract, key words, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, conclusions and then references followed by Figures and Tables. This is MANDATORY and NO other subheadings will be accepted.
The title of your paper MUST reflect surface engineering issues and must be restricted to 10 words.
Authors MUST add several new references from 2022-2023 as this paper will be published only in late 2023 or 2024 and for it to have any archival value the references must be updated and from numerous databases like academia.edu, EBSCO, Inspec, Proquest or google scholar. References only from science direct will not be accepted, we support all publishers and not just Elsevier. No more than 15% of the references can be from any single database. We want to give fair representation to all papers cited in multiple databases and encourage you VERY STRONGLY to consider similar citations from MULTIPLE databases. I am sure you want your paper to receive citations too.
References must be ONLY in the ACS format needed for this journal. This is MANDATORY or it will cause delays in production
https://tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=lmmp20&page=instructions#refs
https://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/style/reference/tf_USACS.pdf
WE TAKE PLAGIARISM SERIOUSLY. Your similarity report MUST not exceed 5% for us to consider a technical review http://www.ithenticate.com/, Please use the ithenticate software to check your paper before submission. There are other free software for plagiarism available using google which you can use to check but we will check ONLY with ithenticate.
Your paper must follow the focus of the journal, so please read the instructions on the website before submission.
Figures -you can print in black and white on grey scale and see how it prints before adjusting as the print version of the journal should not show too dark or too light pictures. Colored lettering must be avoided. Lines should be in black and white with circles, squares of x or bullets to identify data points. All lettering must be 11 pt times roman or higher for easy reading of the figures and tables
if there are features please circle or point arrows to them as described in the legend.
Color pictures will not reproduce in print version and are UNACCEPTABLE.
Please submit a list of 5 reviewers with email addresses and affliation that are not your friends but peers elsewhere. Please also clearly provide their areas of interest to sudarshan@matmod.com please send in the format given below
Prof. Xueling Fan, Tokyo University of Science, Japan. process and analysis of TBCs. fanxueling@rs.tus.ac.jp
Since we receive a large volume of papers you cannot receive individual replies to your queries. The status of the paper is on the website, so please check it periodically. Reviewers are given 12 weeks to review the paper as they do it voluntarily. If you have not received your review by 12 weeks then you can contact us on the status of the paper. Till then all questions cannot be answered.
YOU MUST MAKE SURE YOUR ENGLISH IS READABLE. NO COLLOQUIAL English is acceptable. If your English is difficult to understand we will REJECT the paper without technical review until it is readable by the reviewer. If you need English assistance you may refer to a English language service who will provide the correction service for a fee
IF YOU DO NOT GIVE A MECHANISM FOR YOUR OBSERVED RESULTS WE WILL REJECT THE PAPER AS NOT BEING OF JOURNAL QUALITY. MECHANISM IS MANDATORY. Conclusions must be comprehensive and not written like a report.
PLEASE ALSO CLEARLY INDICATE THE INDUSTRIAL VALUE/RELEVANCE FOR THESE APPROACHES DESCRIBED IN YOUR PAPER. Please also state in the first few paras as to why this work is not the same as that of others and what knowledge is it adding that is not already available that contributes to the archival literature
YOUR PAPER MUST NOT EXCEED 20 TYPED PAGES INCLUDING FIGURES, SO PLEASE REMOVE UNNECESSARY FIGURES AND ENSURE THAT THEY ARE OF THE RIGHT SIZE AND NOT OVERSIZED.
Every author or coauthor of the paper MUST be registered on the website of the journal.
Please provide email address for each author and at least two different email addresses for the primary point of contact, Please also add this to your log in details so that any mail related to your paper is sent to both email addresses. Many papers remain unpublished after review as emails are returned
PLEASE leave only ONE version of the file on the website. Multiple versions cause confusion to the reviewer and may cause a rejection.
%REVIEWER_ATTACH_DEEP_LINK%
LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE-EDITING:
If the referees’ comments have raised concerns over the use of English in your paper, it is important that you check and revise your paper carefully, preferably with the assistance of a native English speaker, to ensure the work is reported and discussed clearly.
You may also wish to consider the use of a language-editing service to refine the use of English in your manuscript before resubmission.
Use of an editing service does not guarantee that your paper will be accepted for publication. A decision will be made following the usual peer review process.
IMPORTANT NOTE ON EQUATIONS IN WORD 2007
Manuscripts containing equations must be produced in Word 2007 compatibility mode using Equation Editor 3.0 or in an earlier version of Word. Equations generated by Word 2007 are stored as images and cannot be used for typesetting.
__________________________________________________
In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://www.editorialmanager.com/sur/login.asp?a=r). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.