Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:17:51 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|