 |
 |
I (perhaps foolishly) agreed to participate in a Qeios review. It was mainly curiosity on my part that motivated me, it had some nice ideas behind the platform about accessibility and more discursive
approach academic research and dissemination but also traded off on rigour and quality, plus it seemed to expect a lot of input and I’ve hence ignored all subsequent emails. Also I don’t know about the motivations behind it so I’m not really advocating getting
involved to be honest but maybe others have a different take…
Best wishes,
Dave
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Anja Lind
Sent: 16 May 2023 11:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Qeios
Warning: This email is from outside the UEA system. Do not click on links or attachments unless you expect them from the sender and know the content is safe.
"It uses AI to find and invite reviewers"—sounds like a bit of a nightmare? Destined to create ever more unpaid reviewing labour, and doubtless of articles that should never have even been sent out in the first place, having taken away ostensibly any editorial
oversight as the first barrier to entry.
I'm reminded of your and Simone Tulumello's conversation on this list a few months ago about peer-review, particularly Simone's very salient point: "Without denying the problems with peer-review, I kinda have the feeling that peer-review has become a convenient
scapegoat for things that are ultimately the responsibility of editorial boards [...] [where] in many journals peer-reviewers are asked to do the editors' job." With this journal that is apparently literally the case.
Anja
Den 16/05/2023 11:39, skrev Jon Cloke: