Maybe there are just too many papers?
It seems to me like this system can't scale up, and please understand --
I don't intend blame on any party, not to mention I don't have an idea
how to fix it:)
Someone check my math, here, but I've observed that there are way more
papers than say, 20 years ago (note qualitative assessment). I've also
heard coffee chat that "reviews are 'crappier' than they used to be in
journal XXXX". If three reviewers need to read each one, and we've
simply doubled the number of papers, then don't we need six times the
number of scientists to review them (or to review six times as many per
scientist)? Is this one reason reviews are short and maybe not helpful?
-jj
Jason Jackson
Candidate for PhD
Duke University
Durham, NC 27704
Frank Marenghi wrote:
Regarding the use the reviews one receives on their manuscript:
I can not speak to whether the reviews are "copyrighted" or not ( I am not a lawyer either) and maybe this is an oversimplification, but I feel the reviews should be treated the same way as any other piece by a known author. After all, it is written by someone (other than oneself) and should be written in quotes and properly cited as Anonymous and the date. Just because we don't know who wrote doesn't mean we can do what we want with it. We just need to know to wasn't written by you.
Regarding the anonymity of the reviewers / reviewees:
I feel the reviewee should be anonymous because of the reasons already mentioned by others (unfair treatment of well known authors, etc.). I also feel that the reviewer should be known because this "mask of anonymity" that may allow the reviewer to speak their mind should not be necessary. The reviewer should be confident enough with their criticisms that they should have no reason to hide their identity. If a reviewer is afraid to say something unless guaranteed anonymity, does it need to be said? or said in such a way? An honest (and useful) reviewer should be able to give criticism to the reviewees "face." If not, maybe they shouldn't be a reviewer.
Best Regards,
Frank Marenghi
Frank P. Marenghi
Environmental Specialist III, Shellfish Program
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes Building, 580 Taylor Ave., B-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:12:57 -0500
From: hcasw...@whoi.edu
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Surprisingly enough, those reviews are copyrighted by their authors,
automatically, even though the authors are anonymous. So, you can't
publish them. You could assign them to a class in the same way you
could assign other copyrighted materials, and you could write about
them (with quotations) under the same fair use guidelines that apply
to any other copyrighted material.
At least, that's my understanding (I am not a lawyer).
Hal Caswell
On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg wrote:
Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
--j
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg
<jgrn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on
your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to
post
these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of
reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to
find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they
end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
--j
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown
<cabr...@tntech.edu> wrote:
Jonathan,
As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was
from a
review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from
the
editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the
reviews
should remain unpublished in any form.
CAB
********************************************
Chris Brown
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, TN 38505
email: cabr...@tntech.edu
website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I
know
REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to be
anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum?
--j
---------------------------------
Hal Caswell
Senior Scientist
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole MA 02543
508-289-2751
hcasw...@whoi.edu
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
