T.-S. Lim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I'd like to hear others' opinions regarding making the review process for
: submitting papers to journals totally open. In my very limited experiences,
: I've encountered referees who don't know what they're talking about. They even
I think this is not uncommon. On the other hand, a journal also depends on
the chief editor (who selects the referees, and also judges if a referee
report is good or not) or Associate Editor (in some cases, the editor
passes to the associate editor who is more knowledgeable with the topic,
and the associate editor selects referees).
: make silly comments. IMHO, they would think twice before writing any silly
: comment if they know that their names would be made known to the author(s).
The problem is you will then get positive reports with a long review
process... I think most people will then decline to be a referee if
they are not happy with the paper.
: I'd like to venture that an open-review process would increase the overall
: quality of the journal. Thank you for reading this. Email me if you'd like to
: have a private discussion.
If you like open-review, then an open discussion should be better...
Anyway, either is acceptable (if handled properly), but an open
review will probably cause more problems, unhappiness and conflict
(we are all human being...). You can imagine what will happen if
the presidential election is totally open (we know whom other
voted...).
