From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:57:56 -0500


On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:34:27 +0000
>
> Sandy, I don't think you're quite right as far as journal reviewers are
> concerned (it's different, in my experience, for books)
>
> Larger journals often keep a database of reviewers, coded by their
> expertise, and tracked according to their record and current workload

The issue is not whether a journal has a coded database of reviewers;
it is how the reviewers are selected:

"Please support us in our efforts. We need submissions and we need
volunteers to review them in their areas of expertise. Both can be
done by registering with Social Sciences Directory as a User."
http://www.socialsciencesdirectory.com/index.php/socscidir/article/view/32/69

This sounds more like crowdsourcing than the selection of qualified
peers by qualified peers.

Stevan Harnad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:49:22 -0600
>
> Is there a list of these 100 registered reviewers publicly posted anywhere?
> And why are reviewers "registered" anyway? Normally, a journal goes to find
> the best reviewer anywhere, not just limit the selection to a predetermined
> list.  For a journal that claims to cover all of the social sciences, 100
> would seem to be a severely inadequate number to draw upon.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
> > From: Dan Scott <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:11:53 +0000
> >
> > Stevan:  A correction: as the press release and our editorial policy
> > make clear, we carry out a full peer review. We also have over 100
> > registered referees.
> >
> > Dan Scott