4 ms·
At the very least, people will be more likely to decline to be a referee for a paper they're less of an expert on or don't have time for if they knew the report
by cozzyd 7y ago
At the very least, people will be more likely to decline to be a referee for a paper they're less of an expert on or don't have time for if they knew the report would be public.
- bumby 7y agoAfter seeing some review comments that make it clear the reviewer either had little knowledge of the field or comments that could have been rebutted by cursory view of the data, this seems like a an area that sorely needs improvement.
- mr__y 7y ago>area that sorely needs improvement. the simplest idea would be to improve peer-reviewing with moving it to something similiar to hacker-news discussion board (but possibly not open to everyone), where reviewers would comment, authors could respond to questions or clarify something.
- bumby 7y agoI’m not convinced that would work. If the problem is the quality of the review it seems like the reviewers need more vetting, not less. I could see the HN version devolving into a lot of wasted effort responding. It would be even worse if it was allowed to be anonymous. If it wasn’t anonymous and the reviewers were vetted with respect to the field they were commenting on, it might work