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