Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:08:08 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
>
> On 14 Dec 2012, at 01:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:23:13 -0500
>>
>> Here is the kind of "membership" deal Nottingham has just signed:
>>
>> "All you can publish" for a year, from a no-track-record journal with
>> Mr William Martin Modrow and Mr Dan Scott as its editors and a team of
>> web-recruited volunteers.
>>
>> For years I and others had been repeating: "The purpose of OA is to
>> free peer-reviewed research from access-tolls, not to free research
>> from peer review."
>>
>> Finch's folly looks like it's instead steering (some) UK institutions
>> toward the latter.
>
> >
> > Lay back, consider social science research, and think of England...
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
|
|
|