4 ms·
From the original piece: I don’t have a solution, but I hope my observations here might be interesting to some. I have a partial solution: researchers "publish
by jseliger 6y ago
From the original piece: I don’t have a solution, but I hope my observations here might be interesting to some.
I have a partial solution: researchers "publish" papers to arXiv or similar, then "submit" them to the journal, which conducts peer review. The "journal" is a list of links to papers that it has accepted or verified.
That way, the paper is available to those who find it useful. If a researcher really thinks the peer reviewers are wrong, he/she can state why, and why they're leaving it up, despite the critiques. Peer-review reports can be kept anonymous but can also be appended to the paper, so that readers can decide for themselves whether the peer reviewers' comments are useful or accurate.
- laretluval 6y agoIf the paper is on the arXiv then it will not be anonymous to the reviewers.
- currymj 6y agoThis is how many CS conferences already work (even with public anonymous peer review, go to openreview.net to see it in action). It does seem to be better, although the frustration level for researchers is not really less. Edit: also, in CS there is a norm that reviewers will not go out of their way to figure out if a submitted paper has been previously posted on arXiv. I don't think it's possible to have perfect anonymity without forbidding researchers from publicly talking about work in progress, so this seems like a reasonable compromise.