4 ms·

Btw: The old system was the editor reading and reviewing all submissions himself. The new system of only a quick glance by the editor and then further scrutiny

Btw: The old system was the editor reading and reviewing all submissions himself. The new system of only a quick glance by the editor and then further scrutiny by a peer was instituted for two reasons: 1.) to many submissions for the editor to read all and 2.) increasing specialization. So going back to the old system would either lead to very cursory and potentially incompetent reviews or the increase in the number of editors to a point where all current senior reviewers are now editors. The former is completely intractable and the latter is still worse then the current status quo, especially since it removes the practice of having two or more reviews that specialize at different aspects (e.g. having on reviewer focus on the numerical side of the simulation and another on the statistical side of the comparison with observation data).

BurningFrog 7y ago
> So going back to the old system would either lead to very cursory and potentially incompetent reviews... Yeah, this is side I'd pick. I'd rather have many mediocre submissions published fast than the current system. Let the "real" review happens after after the results are public. I see how reasonable people can pick the other side.
- petschge 7y ago
  In many many subject areas we already have that through the use of preprint servers such as Arxiv. No need to get rid of the upsides of peer review just to get that.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Then maybe things are pretty reasonable. At least in those fields. I feel at a disadvantage in this discussion because I don't really now what I'm talking about :)