Message 00578 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00565 Message: 13/38 L9 [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] Debrief and clarification process

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

We have almost all the required peer review info so should be on track for Monday. I am not at my desk and have an old terminal and a slow connection so am finding it hard to update the site. So I'll take this opportunity to provide some feedback on the review process. 

In my view signaling works pretty well. There was some confusion and misunderstandings re anonymity because in the case of my paper the roles of editor and author overlapped but since signals were sent to third parties this guarantees the integrity of the process (ie there is no possibility for me to modify my signals). 

After discussing with Jonas we decided not publish the drafts of our papers: this had the potential to confuse the status of a paper and is really of interest to not many people. So I am proposing to drop that requirement of the process. On the other hand reviews should be published (though reviewers can stay anon) to promote review quality.

Finally the signaling category on "Evidence" (there would have to be further evidence...) was perceived as quite confusing by several reviewers and should be either re-phrased or dropped entirely.

In general there were some complaints that the review process was not 100% clear so I am proposing to update it for Monday as it will then be scrutinised outsiders and needs to be as tight as possible.

To that end I am posting below a summary version - please make any comments before Monday midday GMT - I will update the site Monday afternoon and post the release announcements shortly after.

1.1. Non-special issues
-> use contact form to send proposal to editor who will post it to list, thereby preserving anon,, for community vetting and will relay info to sender
-> ask another list member to post proposal to list directly, thereby preserving anon, this person (or editor who can be informed of identity offlist) relay feedback
(maybe this second possibility adds confusion?)
1.2. Special issues: 
-> send proposals to special issue editors 
(not clear if they use community vetting through list or not)

=> in any case feedback about proposal is sent back to still-anon author

Editor(s) send(s) anon paper for anon review (following suggested review categories)
All reviews will be published alongside paper - reviewers decide whether anon or not
Reviews sent to author for possible revision

Revised paper sent back to reviewers for signaling (following signaling categories)
Signals communicated to author - decides whether to publish or not
Paper published alongside reviews and signals
Signals will remain unattributed to ensure frank and fearless signaling

thats it  - hope it is more clear

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00565 Message: 13/38 L9 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00578 [Homepage] [Navigation]