Peer reviewing

[Claire Bowern]

Economics is a field with "revise and resubmit" as a minor category and the
vast majority of decisions being "reject" for the top journals. The results
of that is that papers are often submitted and rejected from 5 or more
journals before being published (or being given up on). Each time there are
two or three new referee reports. That may not be a problem in a field 10
times the size of ours but if the net effect of abolishing A"revise and
resubmit" is to have papers going to more journals, that doesn't seem a
particularly good use of the limited time and goodwill of referees. (oh
yeah, also in economics, referees usually get paid for their reports if
they're submitted on time...)
Claire

On 1 April 2010 11:39, A. Katz <amnfn at well.com> wrote:

> Many suggestions from reviewers do improve our papers, and we are happy and
> grateful to be given the opportunity to implement them. Other suggestions
> make the paper less coherent.
>
> There is probably more involved here than which publications we submit to.
> There is also the question of how similar our theoretical approach is to
> that of the reviewer. That's why authors who are practitioners within more
> established theoretical frameworks find they have better rapport with their
> reviewers. It isn't so much personal, as theoretical...
>
>   --Aya
>
> http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Sherman Wilcox wrote:
>
>  I'm with Bill on this one. I feel that most of the revisions suggested to
>> me by reviewers have improved my papers. For those that were off-base, or
>> that I felt I didn't want to implement, I've always found that when I
>> explain my reasons to the editor, they have been accepted (i.e., I didn't
>> make the changes, and that was accepted by the editor). But as Bill says,
>> maybe this is a reflection of which journals I submit to.
>>
>> --
>> Sherman Wilcox
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/1/10 9:21 AM, Bill Croft wrote:
>>
>>> I think that eliminating the category of "revise and resubmit" is, in
>>> effect, saying that the author is always right, and the reviewers are always
>>> wrong. I don't share that view. Sometimes the author is right, as Martin has
>>> been saying in his messages, but sometimes the reviewers are right. I have
>>> always felt that my papers were improved after "revise and resubmit".
>>>
>>> But this is where the editor's role comes in. The author doesn't see the
>>> reviewers' reports until the editor receives them and passes them on. At
>>> that point the editor may judge whether, in his/her view, the weight of the
>>> evidence supports the author's or the reviewers' perspective, and
>>> communicate this to the author (partly by choosing "revise and resubmit" or
>>> "accept upon revision"). Also, editors nowadays almost always ask the author
>>> to explain how and why s/he revised the manuscript upon resubmission. That
>>> allows the reviewers as well as the editor to judge whether the revisions
>>> are sufficient.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>  Bill Croft wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But the main value for "revise and resubmit" is that one doesn't know
>>>>> how much an author really will revise the manuscript. Not infrequently, I
>>>>> receive "revised" manuscripts which had significant problems where the
>>>>> author has merely added a few footnotes to the original submission. In those
>>>>> cases, I do feel that I have wasted my precious time, as Lachlan puts it,
>>>>> and I will recommend rejection.
>>>>>
>>>> What Bill describes as "the main value" of R&R is the main problem, in
>>>> my view.
>>>>
>>>> In the cases mentioned above, the author probably limited herself to
>>>> adding a few footnotes because she simply didn't agree with the reviewer
>>>> that "the manuscript had significant problems". And often the author is
>>>> right, not the reviewer. Reviewers are not more knowledgeable than authors;
>>>> in fact, they generally know much less about the paper's topic than the
>>>> author.
>>>>
>>>> But predicting whether the editor will overrule the reviewers or not is
>>>> very difficult, so should the author resubmit? This is extremely tricky, and
>>>> I think many papers are delayed because the author is at a loss what to do:
>>>> Follow a reviewer's proposals she is unhappy with, or try a different
>>>> journal?
>>>>
>>>> So I think a new approach that only has "accept" and "reject" would make
>>>> everybody's lives easier.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>