Peer reviewing

[Mark P. Line]

Absolutely agree 100%. Some of my best "finds" have been in something like
Hungarian or Indonesian where I could barely make out enough of the title
and abstract to know I needed to get it translated or summarized. Who
knows how much I've missed seeing because it was in a language that I
didn't even have a leg up on.

-- Mark

Mark P. Line


henri josé deulofeu wrote:
> Dear All,
> One point that is missed in this discussion is the fact that English
> is a dominant language in scientific publications. A lot of valuable
> papers remain confidential because they are not  written in English.
> And even if the author tries to write in English, the problem is that
> the English accepted by journals is not the kind of scientific lingua
> franca people generally think it is. The stylistic requirements of the
> editorial boards go far beyond mere readability. As a consequence, it
> is very difficult for non natives or non specialists of academic
> English to meet them (as you can see from the ongoing text ). And
> further, to forecast their ideas to large audiences. One way to
> overcome this shortcoming could be to put the money saved by extending
> the use of web journals into translation programs of "bests of" papers
> originally not written in English and/or linguistic assistance to non
> native writers during the peer review process.
> Best
> José DEULOFEU
> Université de Provence (France)
> http://jose.deulofeu.free.fr
> Le 3 avr. 10 à 01:27, A. Katz a écrit :
>
>>
>> Matthew,
>>
>> These are some valid points. It is the fact that journal space is
>> limited that helps to shape prestige. However, online publishers can
>> make money, and there are high prestige sites and low prestige sites
>> online, too.
>>
>> Unfortunately, for those of us without institutional affiliation,
>> some of the high prestige sites for reading journals online are not
>> accessible.
>>
>>   --Aya
>>
>> http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, dryer at buffalo.edu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One point that I think is worth mentioning that has not been made
>>> explicitly in this discussion (although I may have overlooked it)
>>> is that the process of peer review is taken far more seriously for
>>> journals than it is for edited volumes.  There is usually a far
>>> higher chance of rejection and often the reviews are more helpful.
>>> And this is the reason why journal publications tend in some sense
>>> to be worth more than chapters in edited volumes and why they are
>>> justifiably treated as worth more in tenure and promotion decisions.
>>>
>>> While I believe that the future lies in online journals, my worry
>>> is that the peer review process will never be taken as seriously as
>>> it is for printed journals.  There is something of a Catch-22
>>> here.  While on the one hand the availability of electronic
>>> publishing renders the cost of publishers as "middle-men"
>>> unnecessary, the very fact that there are companies making money
>>> that they will not make if they do not provide a good product means
>>> that it is almost inevitable that the peer review process for
>>> printed journals will always be taken more seriously than for
>>> online journals.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus
>> mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
>>
>>
>
> Henri-José Deulofeu
> UNIVERSITÉ AIX-MARSEILLE I
> DEPT. LINGUISTIQUE FRANCAISE
> 29 AV. Robert Schuman
> 13621 Aix-en-Provence CEDEX
> +33442953569
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Bartlesville, OK