Apparently rejection is good, so long as it isn't terminal, presumably http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/10/10/science.1227833
This result may be an artefact of the present ecosystem of journals and submission, either efficient or inefficient depending on your view, but less likely to survive a switch to open access, which is not a scenario considered in this paper, however. Steve Steve Hitchcock WAIS Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: [email protected] Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 On 12 Oct 2012, at 16:42, Jan Velterop wrote: > There are of course also problems with submission fees. If you have to pay > and still run the risk of rejection, you would want to be very sure that the > peer-review has been carried out professionally and well, and you would > expect accountability. Many journals would risk failure on the accountability > front, I suspect. > > But the benefits reach beyond fairness. Submissions would be far less > speculative and pitched at the right level far more often than is the case > now. Preventing the cascading down effect, with all the waste of reviewers' > time that comes with multiple rounds of rejection and submission elsewhere, > must be an attractive consequence. Not to mention the reformatting of > manuscript necessary for many a new submission (because to a different > journal) of a previously rejected article. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
