bug-gne
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Broad Technical Issues


From: Dries van Oosten
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Broad Technical Issues
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:19:22 +0100 (MET)

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Christoph Steinbeck wrote:

> > opinions of a few reviewers. If you submit an article to Phys Rev A, it
> > can be denied for publication by ONE peer reviewer and this guy might be
> > your direct competitor, trying to frustrate your work.
>
> Right, but if the community is small enough, which is a tendency all
> over science due to heavy specialization everywhere, you'll get to
> review his article next month, and he knows that. So he'll better be
> fair.

Still, we have a lot of trouble with that and it's a hell lot of work to
convince the editors to go for another reviewer.

> > So we don't want that. Your alternative is great. Ask a few suspected
> > experts from the encyclopedia contributors and ask them to give their
> > opinion. If everyone thinks it sucks, but it should still be published,
> > albeit with some bad credentials. One of the problems with peer review is
> > that if you have a small amount of people willing to peer review, they
> > tend to get a lot of work. And when a peer reviewer always responds fast,
> > he'll get more work the next time. Avoiding these kind of logistic problem
> > can become a big issue if this thing really gets of the ground.
>
> I agree. It would be good to have the review process as open as possible
> - something like a glass house for "articles to be published", where
> whoever wants can review them.

Like preprint archive.

> Each article carries with it the (links
> to its) reviews and ratings. No rating should be accepted without a
> brief justification for it. If an article only has one bad rating and
> you wonder if you can nevertheless trust it, you can still read the
> justification and decide whether to agree or not.

I'm beginning to feel that this can actually be very productive. If you
totally dissagree with a rating as a reader, you can re-rate it and give
arguments why you think the previous review is no good.

Groeten,
Dries





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]