I agree that the notion of involving students in the review process would be
immensely useful for the students. Seeing how the "other half" work would
certainly inform their own writing. I'm going to make a note of this, and
start doing this myself.
But: we must be careful. When I submit my papers for review, I do so on the
premise that they'll be reviewed by persons with a certain expertise. I'd
want to know that the final decision was taking with due diligence by an
appropriate expert, and not by a grad student who might not have the expertise
or experience to do the job well.
Another bonus of this approach: eventually, we should end up with a better
group of reviewers, for the practise they got as grad students....
Cheers.
Fil
Ken Friedman wrote:
> Friends,
>
> Karel's proposal that we involve our research students on the editorial
> and review side is excellent. I purposely repost it in full, below.
>
> The problem of demanding that students publish before completion -- and
> it is a problem -- came up in a debate on this list one year ago. I'm
> going to Oguzhan Ozcan's question and my reply next.
>
> One thing that did not come up is the extraordinary suggest that Karel
> offers -- get research students involved in processes that will help
> them to learn the ropes and master the skills of publishing so that they
> will be ready to participate in the process as authors.
>
> Anyone who nows edits or reviews recognizes the current overload of
> immature and poorly developed material. We discard much of the material
> we reject on basic grounds -- bad writing, unclear ideas, poor
> explanations, failure to meet journal format standards. Often, failure
> to meet journal format standards serves as a proxy for rejecting
> articles that simply don't merit a full review. We cannot spend our
> entire lives writing reviews.
>
> I've got an odd review on my desk right now. The author asked some good
> questions, but failed to address these questions in a robust way. Right
> now, my reply has taken nearly a week or thinking and writing in fits
> and starts -- to unpack the problems and answer respectfully has taken
> nearly five thousand words, a reply as long as the manuscript that
> occasioned it. Normally, I don't use this much time, but the author
> asked good questions. Still, a normal review takes as much as six hours.
> Today's system would break down if every research student were to submit
> one article per year.
>
> There are ways around this, and Karel shows one good way forward. This
> would help to ensure that students who do submit articles are ready to
> submit the kind of article that treats the subject matter well -- while
> using editor and reviewer time respectfully.
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> --
>
> Karel van der Waarde wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Terrence Love stated: "There simply isn't enough journals in design
> research" and asked for 'thoughts'.
>
> There is a clear practical conflict between 'the need to publish' and
> the available capacity.
>
>
> A very practical solution is to focus a part of the PhD on 'editing and
> reviewing'. Although PhD-students must be able to publish towards the
> end of their studies, it is far more important that they are familiar
> with the absolute details of the publishing process.
>
> Reviewing and editing papers will introduce PhD-students to several issues:
>
> - contents: is it new enough? (and how do I check that?)
> - language: is it publishable and is it clear (and how do I check that?)
> - presentation: can these results be presented better? (and how do I
> check that?)
> - are the references suitable and appropriate? (and how do I check that?)
>
> + all practical issues (file formats, deadlines, personality clashes, ...)
>
> At the moment, the editing and reviewing of papers and conferences is
> done as an unpaid spare time activity. (Aren't Sunday mornings and long
> flights great for reviews?) This has reached its limits.
>
> Terry mentioned large numbers of papers. Each would require at least two
> reviewers and some time to edit before publication. Finding suitable
> reviewers and editors has always been very difficult. The figures Terry
> gave make this practically impossible.
>
> It is fairly easy to teach and evaluate a PhD-students developments and
> achievements in reviewing and editing. 'How many papers did you
> review?', 'How many conference presentations?', 'Can you show exactly
> what you did?: original draft, your comments, second draft, your
> comments, published paper.' It is also fairly easy to interpret the
> Bologna publishing standard/DEST points/RAE in this way. It should not
> be: 'the number of publications in selected journals', but 'the
> involvement in academic publishing, as shown in reviewing, editing AND
> publishing'.
>
> Of course, PhD students must publish - it is part of an academic
> training. However, a PhD cannot depend on the number of published
> papers. The time-span of a PhD rarely matches publishing schedules and
> editors should not be put under pressure to 'publish before the viva'.
> Alternatively, the starting dates of PhDs should not be determined by
> academic years, but by the deadlines of academic journals.
>
>
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|