my comments in italics
At 04:10 AM 7/23/2010, Jeremy Fox wrote:
David,
I had hoped it was implicit in our article that journal participation in the
PubCred system is voluntary. It is explicit in the article that the more
journals in the field that participate, the better. Otherwise, authors who
don't wish to review can avoid the system by submitting to non-participating
journals.
If you exclude people, it is not voluntary. PubCred creates a two
tier system of access to journals. It discriminates against those for
whom English is not a first language and those in developing
countries. It also discriminates against those with heavy teaching
loads who may barely be able to write a paper and don't have time to
review. This is a first world, research university model. Also some
of us review because we feel we should; if we feel we have to, we might not.
As stated in the article, the centralized PubCred Bank online system keeps
track of credits. As stated in the article, discussion is needed about who
would pay for, operate, and improve the online system. We suggested a
non-profit consortium supported by online ads, but it's unclear if this is
workable.
We could just let Google or some such take over science? No conflict
of interest with the ads?
Many journals already conduct their business in English, which already
'discriminates' against those whose first language is not English (though
'discriminates' is not the word I would choose). I am unclear how the
proposed PubCred system would impose further discrimination.
We should be looking to improve access. Folks with poor English do
not get asked to referee papers by and large. A system that builds in
discrimination is not what world science is about.
I am afraid it is not obvious to me why only journals of a certain size
would benefit from the PubCred system; can you explain? Note that a journal
that does not draw its authors and reviewers from the same 'pool' as the
journals participating in the PubCred system would have no reason to join
the system (indeed, would have good reason not to join).
Editors of smaller journals do not have the support staff that will
be able to communicate with this new system. These small journal
editors would now have the extra step of 'scoring' reviews (you want
to penalize bad ones). Many small journals are already on the edge
financially.
I know of no data about the overlap of authors and referees between journals.
Regarding Chinese names and common English names such as David Duffy, please
see previous comment. Further, all current online ms handling systems
already assign each person a unique login name, such as their email address.
The PubCred Bank would presumably do the same.
Email addresses change over time. The citation indices which are more
stable use only names. The cost of an up to date system would be
enormous, sort of like the personal information section for FASTLANE.
In summary, generally NSF and similar organizations have encouraged
access and international communication to improve science. This
proposal doesn't seem to do that.
Journals are also changing. Paper may disappear. Refereeing may
become interactive and referees' comments, 'published' online with
the paper, may themselves get commented upon. How would this proposed
"elegant new structure" play out in such a electronic 'sand box'?
I suspect that fields that are vigorous will find vigorous ways to
communicate, while others will stand on ceremony. It will be interesting.
Cheers,
David
In summary, I agree that the devil is in the details. That's why Owen and I
are working very hard through various avenues, including Ecolog-L, to
solicit detailed, constructive feedback. I'm currently spending several
hours per day publicizing PubCreds, soliciting feedback, and thinking about
and responding to feedback. I do so not because I want to see PubCreds
imposed on the community, but because I believe the 'tragedy of the peer
review commons' is a serious and growing problem and I want to see an
effective solution (whether PubCreds or something else) agreed upon by the
community.
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:04:32 -1000, David Duffy <[email protected]> wrote:
>For the the PubCred system
>
>Which journals will be asked (or allowed?) to participate? Who decides?
>
>Who will keep track of the credits?
>
>Many editors in smaller journals already have enough to do and may
>not be overly enthused, how would you deal with the extra burden on them?
>
>Won't this discriminate horribly against those for whom English is
>not a first language?
>
>How will you tell Chinese names apart as their 7,000 characters lose
>something when translated into our alphabet? Or how will you tell the
>various David Duffys apart?
>
>The devil is in the details.
>
>Cheers,
>
>David Duffy
>
>
>At 10:38 AM 7/22/2010, Jeremy Fox wrote:
>>The most common concern raised about the proposed system is how
to allow for
>>people (especially students and postdocs) who aren't asked to review very
>>much, and so lack PubCreds through no fault of their own.
>>
>>Our article notes this issue and suggests 'overdrafts' as a means to deal
>>with it. But many other solutions have been suggested, and there
are aspects
>>of this issue which Owen and I did not have the space to address in our
>>article. So I've just posted a blog entry on the PubCred website further
>>discussing this important issue:
>>
>>http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fix-peer-review/blog/2594
>>
>>I summarize many of the alternative suggestions we've received so
far on how
>>to address this issue, and highlight the importance of a period of data
>>collection before the PubCred system 'goes live'. I also note that there's
>>often no clear distinction between those who lack PubCreds
'through no fault
>>of their own', and those who have 'only themselves to blame' for their lack
>>of PubCreds. Like any 'bank balance', a PubCred balance reflects both
>>'income' and 'expenses'. Just because someone has little 'income' doesn't
>>mean they've 'spent' wisely, which makes it a little tricky to choose the
>>best way of helping 'low income' people like students and postdocs.
>
>
>
>
>David Cameron Duffy
>Professor of Botany and Unit Leader
>Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU)
>University of Hawai`i
>3190 Maile Way St. John 410
>Honolulu, HI 96822-2279
>(808) 956-8218 phone
>(808) 956-4710 fax / (808) 956-3923 (backup fax)
>email address: [email protected]
>=========================================================================
David Cameron Duffy
Professor of Botany and Unit Leader
Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU)
University of Hawai`i
3190 Maile Way St. John 410
Honolulu, HI 96822-2279
(808) 956-8218 phone
(808) 956-4710 fax / (808) 956-3923 (backup fax)
email address: [email protected]
