From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:52:41 -0400

Jim,

This is a good idea in theory, but becomes more
complicated in practice.

Some peer reviewers actually might like a submission,
but think it is wrong for the specific journal they are reviewing
it for.

And the authors would squawk (loudly).  This is like a job
applicant being asked how many times he/she has been turned
down previously, and why.    They'd consider it confidential.

I wish the system you describe could be implemented...

Bill Cohen


> From: "James J. O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:39:56 -0400
>
> There is one experiment with transparency in scholarly communication
> that I have not seen.  I'd be glad to hear if there are any cases where it
> has been tried and to hear comments on the possibility.
>
> The most confidential part of the process of "public"ation is peer
> review.  An author submits an article to a journal and it is accepted
> or rejected; if rejected, the author goes elsewhere and repeats the
> effort to win acceptance.  Journals boast of their acceptance (i.e.,
> rejection) rates.  Something I would like to know - but now cannot
> find out, when I read an article - is whether and how often and by whom
> the same piece has been rejected.  Many editors would be glad to have
> that information about individual items and "average prior
> rejections/article" would be an interesting metric of the quality of a
> journal.
>
> Publishing this information would also allow for validation of the
> peer review system:  articles with high citation counts and multiple
> rejections would be interesting in one way, but it's likely in most
> fields that the reverse would be the near-universal norm.  Who
> would not benefit from such transparency?  If we are to mandate
> access to results of research -- is this not one of the results?
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> Georgetown