[AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews

[Cecil Eng Huang Chua]

May I suggest that the problem is not with the authors or the reviewers or the editors, but with the system?  The review system was designed for a world where journals were written on paper and page counts were expensive.  It is designed to LIMIT the generation of ideas to only those of "high quality."

This idea of journals has accreted to it a number of other ideas- that the more quantity of papers published should be higher.  That editorships and reviews should be voluntary.  Etc.

We have moved to a different world where page counts are relatively inexpensive.  Indeed, the idea of "page numbers" is really redundant now.  What are more appropriate ways of disseminating ideas?

One method is by talking to people.  Ironically, some of my ideas that struggle for years in journals are gaining traction in industry because I get invited to talks.  I then get invited to sites, etc.  My ideas are spreading faster this way than through the journals.

Another, perhaps, is the journal-less database of articles where articles become more accessible as they are more accessed.

Both of these are ideas that exist, but are not legitimized.  They are nevertheless, reasonable ways of disseminating ideas that I would contend have equal "objective" merit to journal publication.

My point is that while many of us are frustrated, we should not vent our frustration on the hapless individuals forced to enact their roles in the system (authors, editors, reviewers), but rather with the legitimized system that forces these people to enact their roles.  If senior members of the community are being impacted by this, aren't they the best placed to make the changes?  Or are we too scared to imagine a world where academia isn't about journal articles?

Cecil Chua