Post by haftka on Apr 3, 2008 16:36:50 GMT -5
As an author, reviewer, and associate editor (AE) for several journals and co-editor of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, I have run into several issues that deserve discussion in our community. In the following, I raise issues and provide the two most extreme reactions I could think of. They do not reflect my views but are presented to stimulate discussion.
1. As authors we are often in the dark about the progress of our paper in the review process. It would be good to correct this.
a. We should be grateful to the service provided by volunteer AEs and reviewers and not ask for more information.
b. The process should be perfectly transparent so that an author would know when reviewers are solicited and be able to see a review as soon as it is submitted.
2. Some researchers who publish a lot refuse to review, or even worse, do not even bother to answer review requests, thereby delaying the review process.
a. We should be grateful for their contribution to the discipline and not bother them with review requests.
b. These are low-life parasites and we should find ways to punish them.
3. Reviewers provide an important service for no compensation. The best reviewers should receive rewards.
a. No. They do have the reward of gaining knowledge from the papers they review, and they must enjoy the power they have if they spend so much time.
b. Yes. The best reviewers should be provided with awards, accelerated publication tracts and recognition on the pages of the journal.
4. Some reviewers take very little time to read papers, are uncivil, or prejudiced.
a. We should be grateful that they take the time to review.
b. The low scores of bad reviewers (given by AEs) should be made public.
5. Some Associate Editors delay greatly the publication process by procrastinating with selecting reviewers or making decisions.
a. This is their privilege. They probably do that for weak papers that deserve to be delayed anyhow.
b. The actions of the AEs should be immediately communicated to authors, so that they can harass AEs when they procrastinate.
1. As authors we are often in the dark about the progress of our paper in the review process. It would be good to correct this.
a. We should be grateful to the service provided by volunteer AEs and reviewers and not ask for more information.
b. The process should be perfectly transparent so that an author would know when reviewers are solicited and be able to see a review as soon as it is submitted.
2. Some researchers who publish a lot refuse to review, or even worse, do not even bother to answer review requests, thereby delaying the review process.
a. We should be grateful for their contribution to the discipline and not bother them with review requests.
b. These are low-life parasites and we should find ways to punish them.
3. Reviewers provide an important service for no compensation. The best reviewers should receive rewards.
a. No. They do have the reward of gaining knowledge from the papers they review, and they must enjoy the power they have if they spend so much time.
b. Yes. The best reviewers should be provided with awards, accelerated publication tracts and recognition on the pages of the journal.
4. Some reviewers take very little time to read papers, are uncivil, or prejudiced.
a. We should be grateful that they take the time to review.
b. The low scores of bad reviewers (given by AEs) should be made public.
5. Some Associate Editors delay greatly the publication process by procrastinating with selecting reviewers or making decisions.
a. This is their privilege. They probably do that for weak papers that deserve to be delayed anyhow.
b. The actions of the AEs should be immediately communicated to authors, so that they can harass AEs when they procrastinate.