Endy0816 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 14 hours ago, Davide said: Reading your post I understand that nothing will ever change in this field. Can you imagine if FIAT-Chrysler, before building a new car, must send the project to Renault to be approved? Do you think Renault will say: wow, nice car! go on. I am very surprise to see how scientist are naive about scientific publication or, I am the naive one and most of the scientist are ok with that. If I make a favor to you then you'll make a favor to me. It's all a matter of connection. Going to conference, knowing the right people, that's science! You can always post a preprint on ArXiv if you're that concerned. The name of the game is not to keep everything to yourself. While if successful Fame and Fortune may follow, the main goal of Science to expand human knowledge in a methodical way. You want people to heavily critique your paper. If passed and then later shown to be flawed a bad paper can permanently tarnish your good name and reputation.
StringJunky Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 4 hours ago, Endy0816 said: You can always post a preprint on ArXiv if you're that concerned. The name of the game is not to keep everything to yourself. While if successful Fame and Fortune may follow, the main goal of Science to expand human knowledge in a methodical way. You want people to heavily critique your paper. If passed and then later shown to be flawed a bad paper can permanently tarnish your good name and reputation. And the reviewer(s).
CharonY Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 The discussion has changed from timely response of review requests to competition within the scientific community. With regard to the former I can give a fairly simple reasons why a 1-week turnover is very difficult for most academics. Usually, a given work week is fully planned and stuffed with hard appointments (e.g. lectures, meetings) as well as time that has been chiseled out for e.g. writing or (if you are lucky) reading. If a request for a review comes in, one cannot simply drop commitments to address them. At earliest, one can schedule them for on of the following weeks and reserve time for that then. With regard to competition, in certain field it is certainly a problem. However, peer-review is a bit like democracy. It is far from perfect, but so far no one has found a convincing alternative (swansont has outlined while some of the proposals in this thread are unrealistic, for example).
Davide Posted November 11, 2019 Author Posted November 11, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 2:44 PM, StringJunky said: You clearly know nothing about scientific review. The purpose of a review is to critique a paper, not sing its praises. more than 9000 posts! Do you work sometime? On 11/8/2019 at 4:42 PM, CharonY said: The discussion has changed from timely response of review requests to competition within the scientific community. With regard to the former I can give a fairly simple reasons why a 1-week turnover is very difficult for most academics. Usually, a given work week is fully planned and stuffed with hard appointments (e.g. lectures, meetings) as well as time that has been chiseled out for e.g. writing or (if you are lucky) reading. If a request for a review comes in, one cannot simply drop commitments to address them. At earliest, one can schedule them for on of the following weeks and reserve time for that then. With regard to competition, in certain field it is certainly a problem. However, peer-review is a bit like democracy. It is far from perfect, but so far no one has found a convincing alternative (swansont has outlined while some of the proposals in this thread are unrealistic, for example). The alternative is easy. NOT BLIND REVIEW! But it looks nobody wants it. Wonder why ahahahahaha -1
StringJunky Posted November 11, 2019 Posted November 11, 2019 41 minutes ago, Davide said: more than 9000 posts! Do you work sometime? I average 3 posts a day over 10 years. Hardly prolific.
dimreepr Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 But someone got exited... With the red button...
swansont Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 On 11/11/2019 at 7:01 AM, Davide said: The alternative is easy. NOT BLIND REVIEW! But it looks nobody wants it. Wonder why ahahahahaha How is that an alternative? What problems does it actually fix? And also explain how problems it introduces would be minor, such that it represents an improvement.
CharonY Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 2 hours ago, swansont said: How is that an alternative? What problems does it actually fix? And also explain how problems it introduces would be minor, such that it represents an improvement. Not to mention that it is being done, and some are offering it optionally. But I seriously doubt that it would address the issues that OP has with peer review.
Davide Posted November 13, 2019 Author Posted November 13, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 5:04 PM, zapatos said: Oh my! You mean you don't actually have data on 'unfair review frequency' but are instead falsifying data in order to support your desired conclusions?!?! No wonder you are having difficulty getting your paper accepted. That was sarcastic... I cant believe you didn't get it. Is really hard to discuss with people having IQ really close to idiocy -2
Strange Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, Davide said: That was sarcastic... I cant believe you didn't get it. Is really hard to discuss with people having IQ really close to idiocy ! Moderator Note That is quite enough. I think this thread has run its course.
Recommended Posts