[AISWorld] Practical suggestions for improving journal cycle times
mmora at securenym.net
mmora at securenym.net
Wed Apr 1 20:56:09 EDT 2015
Colleagues,
I totally agree with these academic suggestions for (not improving but)
alleviating the review process in our discipline. In particular on:
9) Abandon blind review. Blind review is
> supposed to free junior reviewers to reject the papers of their more
> powerful peers without repercussion. This obviously isn't working. It's
> protecting bad reviewers from well-deserved backlash. Knowing your name is
> on a review encourages you to stick to actionable suggestions rather than
> name calling and quibbling about tone.
Science should be not anonymously judged! and non-blind reviews really
demands that reviewers report clear objections (if the case) rather just
critiques on preferred additions to the research or similar issues.
In some journals in Statistical/Mathematics, the reviews are published at
the end of each paper.
>. A simpler, more
> direct review process will encourage everyone to focus on key issues â
> methodology and results rather than framing, positioning and tone â
> increasing quality.
It is a truth that a PhD in USA and other English language countries can
be gained with TOEFL from 550 to 600+ points. However, some reviews are
focused on style, tone, and minor grammatical issues rather in the
essential of research: new findings found through a systematic,
reproducible, testable, and reliable process.
Finally, on the topic that empirical research is the unique kind of
research, I disagree because conceptual research (not position papers)
provides also new findings. Other scientific disciplines cannot experiment
and doing empirical research (like Astronomy or Philosophy itself !) and
there are sciences !
Prof. Mora
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes
Mexico
More information about the AISWorld
mailing list