Hi All, I confess I haven't read the article by Owen Perchey and Jeremy Fox, but I have a suggestion on the subject: 1. Each journal should create and administer (through their web page) its own 'pool' of reviewers (which many already do). 2. If you plan to submit to a particular journal you have first to enroll in their reviewers pool, with the appropriate set of keywords describing your expertise as accurately as possible. By doing so you agree to review N papers/year for them. If you are not in the pool, you cannot submit. 3. Should the editor send you a paper to review you cannot refuse; if you do, or if you don't submit the review in a timely manner (or maybe if you send a *very bad* review) you are banned to submit your own papers to the journal for X months. 4. Reviews, as papers, should be signed by their 'real' authors. If somebody else than the person asked for, does it, it should say so. 5. If you are in the pool of a journal and they don't ask you to review anything, because you are not considered expert enough yet, or just by luck, you are free to submit to the journal. That would take care of students not being able to submit papers because they don't have credits yet.
Just my 2 cents... Francisco de Castro On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ecolog: > > As McCallum so sagely points out, it is the responsibility of peers to > perform this duty, not as in "payment" for an "indebtedness," but to keep > the gift of knowledge circulating. > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Matlock" < > [email protected]> > To: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 6:04 AM > Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] fixing peer review - elegant new proposal and > petition - ideas > > > If people are forced to review just to acquire review credits when they > have no real interest in conducting the review, they will conduct > superficial, inadequate reviews. The peer review system requires individuals > to donate their labor for free to journals. They receive no remuneration and > it serves no purpose for tenure or advancement. Provide proper incentives > (either remuneration or make reviews influence personal advancement) and the > problem will go away. > > ____________________________ > Robert Matlock > Assistant Professor > Department of Biology, 6S-143 > College of Staten Island > City University of New York > 2800 Victory Blvd. 10314 > ________________________________________ >
