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