3 ms·
> it sounds extremely time-consuming. For whom? Surely the authors can find an hour after submitting the paper to a journal? Beware that a reviewer easily spe
by emil-lp 7d ago
> it sounds extremely time-consuming.
For whom? Surely the authors can find an hour after submitting the paper to a journal?
Beware that a reviewer easily spend a full week on reviewing a paper, and there are typically three of them. So if one hour of conversation can save three weeks work, it sounds worth it.
- bee_rider 7d agoI was thinking for the reviewer. Also note that I was only answering as to why it wasn’t done in the past. For the time comparison, I’m not sure, it doesn’t seem quite apples-to-apples: 1) It is scheduled time vs unscheduled. 2) There must be some base rate consideration… the papers being discussed here were planned to be desk-rejected. Maybe it could be a good process for saving papers that were going to be desk-rejected, but I dunno, that seems like it’d just lower the quality standards.
- emil-lp 7d agoBut it's not the reviewers who do it, it's the handling editor. Who spends relatively little time per paper (compared to authors and reviewers).
- bee_rider 7d agoHonestly, I was sloppily thinking of the general reviewer/editor system as one thing (and didn’t notice that I’d lumped them together until you brought it up here). Good point. Although the editor has a lot more papers to handle, so I think they are probably busy as well.