15.182, Disc: New: Blind Peer Review

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-15-182. Mon Jan 19 2004. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 15.182, Disc: New: Blind Peer Review

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Sheila Collberg, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Sarah Murray <sarah at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:06:45 +0100
From:  Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
Subject:  Disc: New: Blind Peer Review

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:06:45 +0100
From:  Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
Subject:  Disc: New: Blind Peer Review


Re: Ronald Sheen's <rsheen at ausharjah.edu> posting on a New Website to
Discuss Blind Peer Review (LINGUIST 15.118)

I think Ronald Sheen is right in suggesting that some kind of
independent evaluation of the performance and fairness of scientific
journals would be welcome.  Scientometrics routinely measures the
impact of journals, but it would be good to also have an independent
measure of the quality of the editorial and reviewing process.
Especially in view of the soaring journal prices, are we really
getting the quality that Publishers say only they can guarantee?

It may be hopeless to try to systematically evaluate the fairness of
reviewers' argumentation (apparently Sheen's main goal), and one can
always point to the availability of competing journals if a particular
approach does not seem to find favor in a particular journal.

However, another VERY important factor is the speed of evaluation. It
would be good to know in general which journals are the fastest and
which are the slowest in evaluating submissions. I'm sure that the
slowest journals would soon have a shortage of submissions, and they
would try to become faster. Competition in this area would be very
healthy.

I find it very worrying that some of the most prestigious journals in
linguistics reportedly take between 6 and 12 months to get reports
from two or three reviewers, even though these reviewers are asked to
send their reviews within eight weeks. I can't believe that it should
be impossible to reduce these times considerably, especially for the
more prestigious journals (because reviewers presumably make reports
for these journals higher priority).

Does anybody know if other fields (especially those where journals
cost a lot more than in linguistics) have independent journal evaluation
procedures of the kind I'm envisaging? Any other ideas?


-Martin Haspelmath







---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-15-182