I am a young scientist. I have only one published MS and two are in the review process. However, I have reviewed 3 or 4 MSs. It seems my name being circulated via my advisor and colleagues is enough to get me opportunities to review manuscripts. Therefore, it seems that I would have earned enough PubCreds by now to earn reviews of my manuscripts given such a system.
--- On Thu, 7/22/10, Jonathan Craft <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Jonathan Craft <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fixing peer review - elegant new proposal and petition > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 8:39 AM > This is an interesting idea, but what > would this entail for young > scientists? Would they have to depend on a more > senior co-author with > PubCreds? Young scientist have to publish some amount > before they would > even get a chance to earn Pubcreds. The Pubcreds > system should be done in a > way that would not prohibit young scientists from being > independent of those > who have had more time to accrue Pubcred wealthy. > > All the Best, > Jonathan > > > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Amartya Saha <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Its a good idea; however there is a possibility of the > quality of reviews > > deteriorating, whereby reviewers may not assign the > time and effort required > > for an indepth review, as their main aim would > be to get as many "PubCreds" > > as possible. > > cheers > > Amartya > > > > > > > > Quoting Jeremy Fox <[email protected]>: > > > > The peer review system is breaking down and will > soon be in crisis: > >> increasing numbers of submitted manuscripts mean > that demand for reviews > >> is > >> outstripping supply. This is a classic "tragedy of > the commons," in which > >> individuals have every incentive to exploit the > "reviewer commons" by > >> submitting manuscripts, but little or no incentive > to contribute reviews. > >> The result is a system increasingly dominated by > "cheats" (individuals who > >> submit papers without doing proportionate > reviewing), with increasingly > >> random and potentially biased results as more and > more manuscripts are > >> rejected without external review. > >> > >> In the latest issue of the ESA Bulletin (July > 2010, v. 91, p. 325), Owen > >> Petchey and I propose a classic solution to this > classic tragedy: > >> privatizing the commons. Specifically, we propose > that instead of being > >> free > >> to exploit the reviewer commons at will, authors > should have to "pay" for > >> their submissions using a novel "currency" called > PubCreds, earned by > >> performing reviews. We discuss how this simple, > powerful idea could be > >> implemented in practice, and describe its > advantages over previously > >> proposed solutions. > >> > >> The article is available at > >> <http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325>. > >> > >> Owen and I are very serious about wanting to see > this idea, or a suitable > >> alternative, implemented. We have set up a > petition at > >> <http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fix-peer-review/>. > Please sign if you > >> support this idea, at least enough to want to see > it further discussed. > >> The > >> petition site also has a link to the article, and > a blog where we'll be > >> updating on progress of the idea and responding to > comments. > >> > >> PubCreds are already set to be discussed by the > ESA Publications > >> Committee, > >> and by numerous other ecology journals. If you're > as frustrated as Owen > >> and > >> I by the recent deterioration of the peer review > process, now's the time > >> to > >> speak up and take action. Please sign the > petition, and pass it on to your > >> colleagues and students. > >> > >> > > > > > > www.bio.miami.edu/asaha > > >
