Interesting. In general I like the idea of a more open review process. After acceptance, it would be helpful to see the referee reports to be able to track the changes to the paper (everyone forgets when the reviewers provide extremely helpful suggestions, while everyone remembers those times when the reviewer made the paper worse - yet both do occur). But posting the reviews of rejected papers ? That doesn't sit right : the point of rejecting a paper should be that there's no need for more discussion on it. Of course you can post whatever you want on a blog, but that doesn't mean you should : it will only attract more attention anyway.
The biggest change I would make to the review system would be to have a more clearly-defined set of guidelines as to what the reviewer can/should do, e.g. how much control they have compared to the authors. The amount of transparency should be explicit and up-front - different levels may be appropriate in different cases, particularly when public preprint services are used. I don't see a good underlying principle to follow; neither total transparency nor total opacity seem sensible to me. I favour an "if in doubt, accept" approach - rejection should only be used when the paper is fundamentally flawed.
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
Ah, the wonders of peer review. This story here goes like this:
1) Author A writes a paper, submits it to a journal, and also uploads the manuscript to a public preprint server.
2) Referee B is asked by the journal to review the paper. Which he does.
3) Based on this and other reviews, the paper gets rejected.
4) Referee B also publishes his review on his private blog.
I suppose you can guess the next act? Well, Author A flips his shit. To absolutely no surprise to anyone who has ever dealt with human beings.
But some advocates of open reviewing apparently believe that Referee B did nothing wrong. And then they wonder why nobody wants to hear about open reviewing from them.
https://neuroneurotic.net/2019/01/10/an-open-review-of-open-reviewing/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.