I'd like to hear others' opinions regarding making the review process for
submitting papers to journals totally open. In my very limited experiences,
I've encountered referees who don't know what they're talking about. They even
make silly comments. IMHO, they would think twice before writing any silly
comment if they know that their names would be made known to the author(s).
JASA (Journal of the American Statistical Association), for example, has
adopted a double-blind reviewing process. I used to think double-blind is good.
Now, I'm not so sure anymore. When you write papers, it's highly likely that
you'll refer to your previous work. So, in the end, the referees would be able
to figure out who write(s) the paper. However, the author(s) can't know the
names of the referees. To hide your identity, you may need to do something
special in the paper. For example, if you quote an example or a case study from
your own organization, you can't mention the name of the organization.
I'd like to venture that an open-review process would increase the overall
quality of the journal. Thank you for reading this. Email me if you'd like to
have a private discussion.
--
Tjen-Sien Lim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.Recursive-Partitioning.com
______________________________________________________________________
Get paid to write a review! http://recursive-partitioning.epinions.com
