Hello everyone:
Echoing a few comments here:
- I also have experienced considerably more re-reviews over the past year.
My best guess is that it stems from a dispersed response by several
editorial departments to complaints such as Roger Musson's that sometimes
papers without adequate corrections are let through. I imagine that whether
to ask for re-review or not is not necessarily a straightforward decision,
especially if the editor is not fully up on the material in question.
Overall, I think it's a good development, but it likely will need continuing
calibration. Or, perhaps the pendulum will just swing back after a while.
- At least one journal temporarily let me see other reviewers' comments
after the final decision was in, and I thought that was fantastic: it
allowed me to learn more both about the science and how to be a better
reviewer. Then the journal took it away, for reasons unexplained. I think
this should be strongly encouraged, because it helps reviewers and gives
them something in return for doing the review. And, it's free to the
journal, just a matter of setting permissions. However, I can imagine
circumstances that might lead a difficult situations, like a reviewer A
telling author B that scientist C's work is junk and should not be relied
upon, and C being the other reviewer. Still, I think disseminating reviews
to reviewers should be a goal. One idea would be for the journal simply to
ask reviewers if it's OK for other reviewers to see their opinions.
Cheers,
Rich
Richard Ketcham
Associate Professor, Jackson School of Geosciences
Faculty Undergraduate Advisor
Director, High-Resolution X-ray CT Facility
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712
(O): 512-471-6942; (F): 512-471-9425
http://www.ctlab.geo.utexas.edu/
-----Original Message-----
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Zoe Shipton
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paper review process
Hi all
Just thought I'd add a counter observation. I actually haven't had the
experience of being asked to re-review a paper, except once, and that was
for fairly straightforward and correct reasons. I certainly haven't noticed
an increase and I have reviewed for a fairly wide range of journals in the
last couple of years. One trend I have seen which is really nice is the
fashion for letting reviewers know what actually happened in the end, which
seems to be becoming more common. Some journals even let you see the other
reviews so if you rejected something which ended up getting accepted, you
can see where the other reviewers opinions differed from your own. It'd be
nice if more journals offered that as an option.
Peer review is a flawed system and it's really common for reviewers to
disagree (see Rothwell and Martyn 200, Brain v. 123, p. 1964-1969
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/123/9/1964.full and Cole et al
1981, Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/214/4523/881), but its the
best system we have to ensure that the quality of what's published is worth
reading.
Cheers
Zoe
P.s. Sorry, Bob for that very late review ;)
On 22/05/2012 16:00, "HOLDSWORTH R.E." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Dennis and all,
Speaking up on behalf of Editors...
It is worth remembering that Editors themselves often receive very little or
no financial reward for the work they do and take the job on in addition to
all their normal duties as academic researchers and teachers. Their
motivation is partly based on interest and partly on wanting to do good for
the general community - much the same reasons that motivate reviewers. I
think that we all recognize that if we all put our shoulders to the wheels
of publication as reviewers/editors then all will benefit as authors. Well
that's the theory...
In reality, there are times when being an editor is a real pain in the
preverbial backside. Some authors take exception to rejection and can create
a great deal of trouble for an Editor if they feel so inclined. This can get
quite nasty and very personal. The bigger the beast (ego) and the bigger the
journal, the worse this problem becomes. Reviewers are a problem too: they
often dont answer your requests, thereby leaving the review process hanging,
or accept the job and then take months to do the job ("sorry - lost the
request, dog ate it" - you name it - i've heard the lot in terms of
excuses). And then they may not do a very good job. This is then a real
dilemma for the editor: make do with a bad review or get another
one?.....Finally Editors face one other dilemma - authors often want their
papers reviewed by big names, but many big names also make the worst
reviewers (for all sorts of perfectly good reasons).
It ain't easy being an Editor....
Having said that I am at a loss as to why Editors would prolong the review
and decision process in the way you indicate Dennis. This damages your paper
processing times and can harm your impact statistics. Editors are generally
under pressure from publishers to make decisions not prevaricate or pass the
back back to reviewers. I am at a loss to explain this.
Best wishes
Bob Holdsworth
-----Original Message-----
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list on behalf of dennis
brown
Sent: Tue 5/22/2012 2:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paper review process
Hi Reia
This works in various ways. When you submit a paper you have to list up to
six possible reviewers (depending on the journal). Once an editor receives
the paper it then gets assigned to an associate editor who begins to look
for reviewers. The AE can either use one or two from the list provided by
the authors, but also the journal tends to have its own database of possible
reviewers from were the AE can search or add a person if they are not there.
As Jochen says, the AE will often look for people who have recently
published in the same or similar field.
This can be as simple as looking at the reference list. The unfortunate part
about much of this process, as Peter Clift intimated, is that once you get
on a journals reviewers list you may asked over and over again to review
papers, whereas many people, like yourself, never get asked.
I hope that this answers your question.
Dennis
>The various posts on this topic has raised my curiosity: How is it
>that you guys are getting papers to review? Did you do something to
>request being a reviewer in the first place, or did someone approach
>you?
>
>--Reia, who hasn't reviewed a paper yet
>
>
>******************************************************
>
>Reia M. Chmielowski
>
>Assistant Lecturer
>
>Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
>
>Division of Geosciences
>
>Luleå University of Technology
>
>SE-971 87 Luleå Sweden
>
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>Phone: +46 (0)920 492033
>
>Mobile: +46 72-539 07 76
>
>Fax: +46-920-491199
>
>Room: F833
>
><http://ltu-se.academia.edu/ReiaChmielowski>http://ltu-se.academia.edu/
>ReiaChmielowski
>
>******************************************************
>
>
>
>
>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>[[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Peter D Clift
>[[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:52 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Paper review process
>
>Dear Dennis
>
>I tend to agree with your sentiments on this matter. I probably review
>more papers than I should, assuming I actually want to do some work for
>myself from time to time, and I find it rather irritating and
>frustrating to keep getting papers back for further review after my
>views were fairly straight forward after the first set of reviews. I
>am sure my sentiments as a author are the same as most people. Since
>reviewing is a very time consuming process I can't say that I enjoy
>these iterations, many of them unecessary. In my view this increasing
>tendency stems from editors wanting the reviewers to do their job for
>them. Instead of making a decision based on the reviews the trend
>appears to be to have papers cycle through the review process until the
>reviewers say that it can be accepted. Perhaps editors are afraid of
>making a mess of a good journal or perhaps they are just swamped with
>work and don't have time themselves to read reviewed papers in detail,
>so they make the reviewers do that work for them? I don't fully
>understand why editors feel the need to have unanimous support from
>reviewers before accepting a paper. I have encountered reviewers who
>seem to think that they have supreme right of veto on a paper but in my
>view they misunderstand their role in providing advice and guidance.
>Acceptance or rejection is an editorial process and one I would like to
>see more editors get a grip on rather than load up the community with
>more work than needs be.
>
>Best wishes
>Peter
>
>
>On May 22, 2012, at 4:49 AM, dennis brown wrote:
>
>>Dear List Members
>>In the last year or so I have noticed that more and more papers go to
>>a second or even third round of reviewing before editors make a
>>decision. I find this for my own papers, papers that I review, papers
>>for which I act as Associate Editor, and from looking at the review
>>history of published papers. It doesn't seem to make a difference if
>>the first reviews recommend minor revision, the editors still seem to
>>want a second round of reviewing before taking a decision. I suppose
>>that this arises from a number of factors, including the publishers
>>pressure to increase impact factors and a further veting process
>>because of an increase in the number of papers received by the
>>journals. Nevertheless, what it does do is double or even triple the
>>work of the reviewer and the AE's: at times to the point of becoming
>>tiresome. If you expect that accepting a paper to review could be a
>>threefold process that lasts six or eight months, then one thinks
>>twice before accepting to review it.
>>
>>I realise that this as nothing to do with geotectonics as such, but I
>>would like to hear other people's opinions and experiences on this
>>are.
>>
>>Sincerely
>>Dennis
>>--
>>
>>-----------
>>Dr. Dennis Brown
>>Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra "Jaume Almera"
>>c/Lluis Sole i Sabaris s/n
>>08028 Barcelona
>>Spain
>>Tel: 34 93 409 54 10
>>Fax: 34 93 411 00 12
>>e-mail: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>><http://wija.ija.csic.es/gt/dennisbrown/>http://wija.ija.csic.es/gt/de
>>nnisbrown/
>>
>
>
>
>======================
>
>Peter D. Clift
>Charles T. McCord Professor of Petroleum Geology, Department of Geology
>and Geophysics,
>E235 Howe-Russell-Kniffen Geoscience Complex Louisiana State
>University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
>
>Tel: +1 225-578-2153
>Fax: +1 225-578-2302
>Email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
><http://www.geol.lsu.edu/pclift/>http://www.geol.lsu.edu/pclift/
--
-----------
Dr. Dennis Brown
Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra "Jaume Almera"
c/Lluis Sole i Sabaris s/n
08028 Barcelona
Spain
Tel: 34 93 409 54 10
Fax: 34 93 411 00 12
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://wija.ija.csic.es/gt/dennisbrown/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Professor Zoe Shipton
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Strathclyde
John Anderson Building
107 Rottenrow
Glasgow, G4 0NG
0141 548 3183
|
