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.
https://neuroneurotic.net/2019/01/10/an-open-review-of-open-reviewing/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
-
Why Philosophy Matters for Science : A Worked Example "Fox News host Chris Wallace pushed Republican presidential candidate to expand...
-
In the last batch of simulations, we dropped a long gas stream into the gravitational potential of a cluster to see if it would get torn...
No comments:
Post a Comment