Those who just decline without doing so: come on, how much time does it take to think of a few colleagues in your area?
-
-
No ratings, please. That reintroduces many of the same biases that cause problems with the current system. Just say if it’s rigorous or not like
@PubPeer There are more scholarly ways to highlight good work than just lazily rating a buddy’s work highly. -
Yeah. I wasn’t so clear in what I meant by ratings. I was referring to Eisen’s idea that rather than a series of serial *binary* journal accept/reject decisions, serious “unbiased” reviewers (similar to today’s) could place a paper within hierarchies in 1 shot, saving much time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If 9+ is for papers like in Nature/Science, how should we rate the ones we really like?
-
If all goes well, then in the age of archive overlay journals scientists will simply stop writing Nature/Science style papers. 1500 words, 4 figures, 30 citations: That's not a scientific report, just an advertisement.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's one system. But not the one i personally want. I want a "content aggregator" (editor) with judgment and taste. That is how Ben Lewin made Cell so successful in such a short time. I just dont want that selection process to interfere with dissemination. No gatekeepers!
-
What does "taste" mean in this context?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.