In praise of the referee (2)
Following Nicolas’ guest-post on this ‘Og, plus Andrew’s and mine’s, we took advantage of Kerrie Mengersen visiting Paris to write a common piece on the future of the refereeing system and on our proposals to improve it from within. Rather than tearing the whole thing down. In particular, one idea is to make writing referees’ reports part of the academic vitas, by turning them into discussions of published papers. Another one is to achieve some training of referees, by setting refereeing codes and more formalised steps. Yet another one is to federate reports rather than repeating the process one journal at a time for the unlucky ones… The resulting paper has now appeared on arXiv and has just been submitted (I am rather uncertain about the publication chances of this paper, given it is an opinion column, rather than a research paper…! It has already been rejected once, twice, three five times!)
May 29, 2012 at 3:57 am
[…] discussion following a guest post at Xi’an’s Og in defense of refereeing produced a proper preprint — it’s so good that it has already […]
May 26, 2012 at 11:46 am
How about publishing it as “Letter to the editors” in a cross-topic journal, e.g. PLoS One or, let’s go crazy, Science or Nature or Science? Or, failing that, in a scientitic magazine, such as The American Scientist?
May 26, 2012 at 11:50 am
Ta’. It is a bit on the wee long for those journals. And Science/Nature require special formats I do not want to waste time investing in, given the subzero probability of getting published there. The second journal has not yet rejected it, mind you!
October 21, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Now it has. Along with the third!
October 21, 2012 at 6:45 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6LVI1gDswg ;-)