But I do worry that eLife is trying to change the entire system, while failing to modify any of the perverse incentives that drive the problems in the first place. Hard to predict how sentiment will change. The editorial process could be made transparent by publishing the desk rejection/acceptace along with the reasons.Ĭoncern #2 might resolve itself with time.Editors could be required to apply a checklist or algorithmic selection process.The selection process could be a lottery (granted, this isn’t ideal because finding editors and reviewers for a crappy preprint will be hard).eLife could address this concern in various ways: How can we ensure that the editors will act fairly and don’t get attracted by shiny objects? That said, this policy might actually put more of a spotlight on the desk-rejection step and yield change. Over the years, editors haven’t exactly proven themselves to be ideal gatekeepers. It also is less rigorous by lowering the bar to “publication.”Ĭoncern #1: I think it’s a step in the wrong direction to grant editors even more power. This model doesn’t substantially reduce the burden on authors to jump through hoops held by the reviewers (or risk a bad eLife Assessment). The primary problem I have with peer review is that it is simultaneously overly burdensome and not sufficiently rigorous. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |