Post #641950

2026-03-12 02:28 UTC

A letter to Taylor &amp; Francis from (most of) what was the editorial board of Communications in Algebra. The header is by Jim Coykendall. The managing editor to whom Jim refers is Scott Chapman, who was apparently summarily dismissed by T&amp;F. %%%%%%%%% Math friends: Last evening just before 10pm, approximately 80% of the editorial board of Communications in Algebra resigned (the joint letter of resignation is below) and it appears that at least another 10% will step down independently. I would advise caution when considering this journal (possibly other Taylor and Francis journals?) until such time as it gets back on an even keel. As of this post (1 business day after the resignation), all of the resigning editors are still in the editorial system and none have been contacted. Additionally, the managing editor position has been vacant for a week and there has been no replacement (and no visible movement in that direction); the papers appear to be just piling up. If this situation is coupled with multiple full reviews, I would not submit any paper there for which a timely decision is required. ----------------------------------------- To Whom It May Concern: We as editorial board members at Communications in Algebra are sending this notification of our resignation from the board. This letter is being written to explain our position. We note at the outset that a number of the signatories are willing to finish their currently assigned queue if requested by Taylor and Francis. (1/3)

Replies (2)

@ProfKinyon@mathstodon.xyz 2026-03-12 02:29

As associate editors, it is our duty to protect the mathematical integrity of Communications in Algebra in all arenas in which our expertise applies, and it is in this aspect where our concern lies. The "top-down" management that Taylor and Francis seems to be implementing is running roughshod over the standard practices of the refereeing process in mathematics. To unilaterally implement a system that demands multiple full reviews for papers in mathematics is extremely dangerous to the health and the quality of this journal. The system of peer review in mathematics is different from the standard peer-review process in the sciences; in mathematics the referee is expected to do a much more in-depth and thorough review of a paper than one encounters in most of the sciences. This often involves 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. 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. It is our understanding that one solution proposed in this vein was to "drastically increase" the size of the editorial board, but this does not address the problem at all, and also would have the side effect of making Communications in Algebra look like one of the many predatory journals invading the current market. (2/3)

Open ##1258317
@lowrankjack@mathstodon.xyz 2026-03-12 07:34

@ProfKinyon Thank you for letting the community know this story. This reminds me of the same action done by the journal of machine learning when 40 editorial board members resigned in 2001 and created the fully open JMLR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Machine_Learning_Research Do you consider moving your journal to another place? For instance, the open and non-commercial episcience initiative already hosts several mathematical journals? https://www.episciences.org/publishing-model/ https://www.episciences.org/journals/?cat=2232

Open ##1258324