Message 00175 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00172 Message: 4/7 L3 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[jox] Consensus? 02 (ratings)

Hi all

Re ratings, I don't think anyone has suggested a response to the following criticism: publishing differently-expert rated papers / submissions may cause some prejudice to, or hurt the feelings of, the people who were given inferior ratings. This is the same system as Slashdot and other blogs where people rate the comments and the posts of contributors. It seems a bit more brutal if reviewers publicly name certain papers in the journal as inferior to others.
So maybe we could have expert ratings but they would not be made public: we would publish more papers, presumably, than if we published only highly excellent papers. We may lose some "credibility points" (but we don't really have any at this stage). But we won't be publicly discriminating between published papers. Not sure how useful they would be then.

It's either that, or do away with expert ratings altogether, and go back to publish / don't publish. At any rate those are the two alternatives I can think of...




Thread: joxT00172 Message: 4/7 L3 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00175 [Homepage] [Navigation]