From Scientists to Scientists—Moving Angewandte into the Future

Abstract

On June 4, 2020, an Essay entitled “Organic synthesis–Where now?” is thirty years old. A reflection on the current state of affairs was published on the website of Angewandte Chemie as an “Accepted Article”. The article should have never been published, and we join the editors of Angewandte Chemie in sincerely apologizing for the offensive and misguided essay.

On June 4, 2020, an Essay entitled “Organic synthesis–Where now?” is thirty years old. A reflection on the current state of affairs was published on the website of Angewandte Chemie as an “Accepted Article”. The article expressed offending views about women and other groups underrepresented in science. In addition, the Chinese research community was unjustly defamed. It contained a description of mentorship in science that contravenes the values of good working practice and education. The article was withdrawn by the editors from Wiley Online Library on June 5, according to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and standards adopted across the publishing sector from the STM Association (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers), and two editors were suspended on June 6.

The article should have never been published. We join the editors of Angewandte Chemie in sincerely apologizing for the offensive and misguided essay. We, the signatories, share the anger and disappointment expressed by the scientific community. The publication of the article demonstrated a failure of the editorial decision‐making process for Essays and Viewpoints. As members of the Kuratorium/Editorial Board of Angewandte Chemie and members of the Presiding Committee of the German Chemical Society (GDCh), the owner of Angewandte Chemie, we are deeply concerned that the appearance of this Essay has harmed the trust of the scientific community in the journal's procedures to select essays of the highest scientific standard without bias.

Simultaneously to the steps described above, a thorough investigation was initiated (June 5) as part of the COPE protocol. In parallel, a group of representatives from the Editorial Board, the GDCh, and Wiley joined forces to coordinate the actions and the communications between the responsible stakeholders that include the scientific community, the owner of the journal, and the publisher. The authors of this Editorial were part of this team, and we fully endorse all actions taken from each group in their respective area of responsibility (https://www.gdch.de/service‐information/nachricht/article/stellungnahme‐zum‐beitrag‐von‐tomas‐hudlicky‐in‐der‐angewandten‐chemie.html; “An Open Letter to Our Community”, June 09, 2020, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15213757/homepage/news#vchnews49472; see Supporting Information).

Even though the full analysis about the failure of the editorial process is still ongoing, we felt the necessity to reach out to the scientific community. It is imperative that we share information regarding short‐term actions and start a dialogue about potential medium‐ and long‐term measures aimed at improving the editorial process. On June 6, we initiated as a first step an online conference with all members of the Editorial Board and the International Advisory Board (IAB). The meeting, held online on June 10, enabled a broad discussion regarding potential internal reorganization steps. We are grateful that the majority of the IAB—including, in particular, representatives from groups that were directly targeted in the Essay—attended the meeting and made proposals for improving editorial procedures. Over forty participants contributed to the constructive discussion in the forum, and many additional comments and suggestions were provided by e‐mail. Some colleagues decided to express their concern in a different way and resigned from their appointments on the IAB on June 9. We respect their motivation and their strong signal of the need for change.

The following points summarize the main conclusions from the online forum, which was inspiring, motivating, and an open and constructive discussion with many highly respected colleagues. Unanimously, the group expressed their dismay of the opinions expressed in the Essay. Angewandte Chemie is viewed as one of the major chemistry journals in the world. Still, much can be learned from the current situation to improve its standing further. The publishing of Essays, as one of several types of publication in Angewandte Chemie, was broadly appreciated, but the current case evidences that the standard editorial and peer‐review processes as implemented for scientific articles are not appropriate for Essays (or Viewpoints). At the same time, the IAB stressed the necessity to ensure continuation of the efficient and high‐quality editorial processes for purely scientific articles. The IAB welcomed the implementation of the interim Editor‐in‐Chief Committee consisting of Theresa Kueckmann, Frank Maass, Xin Su, and Nathalie Weickgenannt.

The question also arose whether there is systemic bias within the structures of Angewandte Chemie. We applaud that Wiley has already initiated a study to analyze potential biases in the reviewing process and that the publisher supports rigorous awareness training against bias in the future. It is clear for all scientists and editorial staff members involved that the current crisis is a wake‐up call to analyze the situation and implement fundamental changes in three essential aspects:

• Diversity, equity, and inclusion as the central pillars of societal justice in academia at all levels

• The global nature of science (“science without borders”)

• Supporting and motivating mentorship and career development for the next generations of scientists

Several excellent suggestions to initiate and monitor this process were made at the meeting. Now it is up to the Editorial Board together with GDCh and Wiley to put these into action. The interactions with the IAB have been of enormous help in this process, and we are most grateful for their offer to continue their support. In considering the three essential aspects above, we are initiating discussions regarding:

• Stronger and more direct inclusion of active scientists in the editorial process

• Increasing diversity in the Editorial and International Advisory Boards

• Involving scientists from the Editorial Board and the IAB in the reviewing process of Essays and Viewpoints, in particular

• Providing a broader platform for young PIs, for instance, through formation of an Early Career Advisory Board

• Reconsidering the reviewing process (for instance, including the option for double‐blind reviewing)

• Redefining the requirements for author profiles

• Improving the diversity of the scientists we feature

Central to the success of Angewandte Chemie is the work in the Editorial Office. We know how shaken the Editorial Office has been by the current events. We trust that the interim Editor‐in‐Chief Committee and all staff members will provide an uninterrupted, valuable, and vital service to our scientific community. The COPE process will help us understand the factors that have allowed the Essay in question to pass through the publishing process. We are convinced of the personal integrity and dedication to science of the whole team. Authors can be assured that their manuscripts will continue to be handled in the most professional way and with the highest scientific standards—as expected from Angewandte Chemie.

Angewandte Chemie is one of the most influential journals in the chemical sciences. It has the responsibility to demonstrate leadership in the scientific community beyond reporting scientific data and results of the highest quality. We are dedicated to work in our specific roles towards this goal and we invite you to join us in this endeavor!