 |
 |
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/dennisbrown/
>>
>
>
>
>======================
>
>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/