3 ms·
> the number of papers the average researcher is being asked to review is increasing The quality of review becomes proportional to the impact factor of the jou
by buboard 8y ago
> the number of papers the average researcher is being asked to review is increasing
The quality of review becomes proportional to the impact factor of the journal. And given that the high impact journals have not substantially expanded the number of articles they publish, it might mean that there are now more candidate reviewers.
What has become substantially more burdensome is the number of funding applications that (esp. young) investigators have to submit per year. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/313 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/313
> Post-publication peer review is one option, and Fighare
There are interesting proposals. E.g. elifesciences proposes to publish everything, under the condition that the reviews will be published eponymously along with the paper
- lsh 8y agono proposals, the review feedback and author response to the review are published. Here is an example: https://elifesciences.org/articles/35082#SA2 https://elifesciences.org/articles/35082#SA2 Peer review at elife works slightly differently. The author(s) are not subjected to multiple rounds with multiple reviewers, instead the review feedback from the peer reviewers is aggregated by the editorial staff before being sent back to the author. There may be multiple rounds of this however.