american institute of physics

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: while I accept that it is impossible to categorically rule out the possibility that a manuscript is live at two different journals, or was presented elsewhere, and while I agree [redacted] does have an exemplary peer review process and high standards, I believe my allegations should have been investigated, both the one you referred to in your response here and the more serious one which I madeAs I pointed out, it would have been a simple thing to investigate Regards, [redacted] ***

We are writing in response to your original letter dated February 14, 2017..regarding a complaint by [redacted] claiming that an article published in one of our journals contained material that one of the article'sauthors may have previously submitted for publication in an unrelated journal.Please be advised that AP Publishing is committed to the integrity of the scholarly articles that we publishWe stand by our carefully constructed editorial policies and the expert peer-review process employed by our journalsFor example, our editorial policies require authors to confirm that their submissions are original works of authorship that were not previously publishedIn addition, our articles are published only after an expert peer-review process, which helps to reduce the possibility of dual publicationNotwithstanding these procedural safeguards, which are normative in our industry, there is no failsafe method that we are aware of to guarantee that no published article was not previously submitted for publication to an unrelated journal.Further, please note that we responded to [redacted] about this issue, and believed at the time that she was satisfied with our responseWe are unclear as to why this issue is being raised with the Revdex.com, as there is no claim that we are aware of with respect to our customer service or our editorial processes, which are both commercially reasonable and result in our highly regarded reputation for academic integrity in the physics community.Sincerely,Jason W [redacted] Chief Publishing Officer AP Publishing

We are writing in response to your original letter dated February 14, 2017..regarding a complaint by [redacted] claiming that an article published in one of our journals contained material that one of the article'sauthors may have previously submitted for publication in an unrelated journal.Please be...

advised that AP Publishing is committed to the integrity of the scholarly articles that we publish. We stand by our carefully constructed editorial policies and the expert peer-review process employed by our journals. For example, our editorial policies require authors to confirm that their submissions are original works of authorship that were not previously published. In addition, our articles are published only after an expert peer-review process, which helps to reduce the possibility of dual publication. Notwithstanding these procedural safeguards, which are normative in our industry, there is no failsafe method that we are aware of to guarantee that no published article was not previously submitted for publication to an unrelated journal.Further, please note that we responded to [redacted] about this issue, and believed at the time that she was satisfied with our response. We are unclear as to why this issue is being raised with the Revdex.com, as there is no claim that we are aware of with respect to our customer service or our editorial processes, which are both commercially reasonable and result in our highly regarded reputation for academic integrity in the physics community.Sincerely,Jason W[redacted] Chief Publishing Officer AP Publishing

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: while I accept that it is impossible to categorically rule out the possibility that a manuscript is live at two different journals, or was presented elsewhere, and while I agree [redacted] does have an exemplary peer review process and high standards, I believe my allegations should have been investigated, both the one you referred to in your response here and the more serious one which I made. As I pointed out, it would have been a simple thing to investigate  
Regards,
[redacted]