Re: (off-topic) review process (was:self-plagiarism) (Laszlo Toth )


Subject: Re: (off-topic) review process (was:self-plagiarism)
From:    Laszlo Toth  <tothl@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:49:00 +0200
List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>

> I think the best way would be to share your and other reviewers' > concerns with the authors through the editor and ask them to further > explain and clarify the matter. In any fair judiciary system, people are > allowed to defend themselves. I don't see why this shouldn't > be the case in the scientific review process. I agree, but unfortunately, the current review systems are too rigid for this. I remember how many times I knew that the reviewer was wrong (or just misunderstood something), and how I wished to have the possibility of getting into a discourse with him/her. This could be easily implemented, for example, the journals could create "blogs" deticated to the given manuscript, where the author and the reviewers could get into a discussion (preferably anonimously). I hope than sooner or later this will replace the current method which in many cases isn't fair with the author. Laszlo Toth Hungarian Academy of Sciences * Research Group on Artificial Intelligence * "Failure only begins e-mail: tothl@xxxxxxxx * when you stop trying" http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~tothl *


This message came from the mail archive
http://www.auditory.org/postings/2009/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University