4 ms·

There's just one solution. Make the reviews public. All academia I encounter are against it. So, it's probably the right way to go. :-)

sampo 13y ago
> Make the reviews public At least The European Geosciences Union publishes 15 academic journals that do exactly that. (They're also Open Access, and CC-licensed.) http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/ http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/ Some on them, like Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, are also pretty highly regarded.
leephillips 13y ago
The other popularly suggested solution is sort-of the opposite: use double-blind reviewing, where the reviewer doesn't know who the authors are, at least formally.
- kenko 13y ago
  This is the standard in most disciplines. I wish the authors of this article had done the same test with journals that do blind reviewing. I'd bet they still got a lot of rejections of previously accepted articles for bizarre reasons, since in general acceptance depends a lot on the particular reviewers you draw.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    "This is the standard in most disciplines." Any citation for this? I'm curious, because in physics, although this is often suggested, it has not been generally adopted.
    - kenko 13y ago
      Really? I guess I should've said "this is standard in most disciplines ... that I know about". I'm really surprised that it isn't done in physics!
      - tensor 13y ago
        It's not done in CS either. It varies greatly by sub-topic though.
    - gcr 13y ago
      In computer vision conferences, reviewing is almost always double-blind. In computer vision journals, reviewing is only half-duplex blind -- the reviewers can see who you are, but not vice versa.
- akjj 13y ago
  Two counter-arguments: First, in many disciplines, it is common to circulate pre-prints of papers which are being refereed. In this case, anonymity for the authors is impossible, practically speaking. Second, the OP describes a snob effect, but there is also the reverse: Some referees will be more patient in dealing with badly organized or poorly written papers from a junior researcher. Not necessarily lower standards, but spending more time figuring out the paper, making suggestions for improvement.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    And it can be obvious who the authors are in a field you are following closely; which, ideally, you should be if you are reviewing papers in that field. That's why I said "formally".
    - tensor 13y ago
      This paper extends our previous work on .....

sampo 13y ago

> Make the reviews public At least The European Geosciences Union publishes 15 academic journals that do exactly that. (They're also Open Access, and CC-licensed.) http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/ http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/ Some on them, like Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, are also pretty highly regarded.

leephillips 13y ago

The other popularly suggested solution is sort-of the opposite: use double-blind reviewing, where the reviewer doesn't know who the authors are, at least formally.

kenko 13y ago
This is the standard in most disciplines. I wish the authors of this article had done the same test with journals that do blind reviewing. I'd bet they still got a lot of rejections of previously accepted articles for bizarre reasons, since in general acceptance depends a lot on the particular reviewers you draw.
- leephillips 13y ago
  "This is the standard in most disciplines." Any citation for this? I'm curious, because in physics, although this is often suggested, it has not been generally adopted.
  - kenko 13y ago
    Really? I guess I should've said "this is standard in most disciplines ... that I know about". I'm really surprised that it isn't done in physics!
    - tensor 13y ago
      It's not done in CS either. It varies greatly by sub-topic though.
  - gcr 13y ago
    In computer vision conferences, reviewing is almost always double-blind. In computer vision journals, reviewing is only half-duplex blind -- the reviewers can see who you are, but not vice versa.
akjj 13y ago
Two counter-arguments: First, in many disciplines, it is common to circulate pre-prints of papers which are being refereed. In this case, anonymity for the authors is impossible, practically speaking. Second, the OP describes a snob effect, but there is also the reverse: Some referees will be more patient in dealing with badly organized or poorly written papers from a junior researcher. Not necessarily lower standards, but spending more time figuring out the paper, making suggestions for improvement.
- leephillips 13y ago
  And it can be obvious who the authors are in a field you are following closely; which, ideally, you should be if you are reviewing papers in that field. That's why I said "formally".
  - tensor 13y ago
    This paper extends our previous work on .....