>> On 03/27/12, *Christian Siefkes * <
christian@siefkes.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Mathieu and all,
>>>
>>> On 03/26/2012 04:17 PM, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
>>> > Openness undoubtedly has great virtues, but in the case of academic
>>> > publishing it can also generate some bad side-effects.
>>> >
>>> > For this issue of JoPP five papers were sent out for review. Three
>>> of the
>>> > papers will be published with reviews and signals. Two other papers
>>> were not
>>> > great. Reviewers worked long and hard to address shortcomings and make
>>> > suggestions.
>>> >
>>> > One author decided that it would not be possible to make these
>>> adjustments
>>> > though much time kept being added.
>>> >
>>> > The other agreed to make changes but then used the time excuse as
>>> well as
>>> > sickness.
>>> >
>>> > There is nothing preventing either author from now submitting their
>>> > much-improved papers to another journal...
>>> >
>>> > In my view, we should try to address this obvious waste of reviewer
>>> (and
>>> > editorial) work/energy.
>>>
>>> hmm, isn't this a problem of being (maybe) not open enough instead of
>>> being
>>> too open? In the experience from my own academic this, this is a quite
>>> possible scenario in the traditional peer review process: reviewers send
>>> criticism and suggestions, the author might then revise the paper and
>>> send
>>> back a revised version, or submit the revised version elsewhere.
>>> Especially
>>> if a paper is re-submitted by multiple journals (after being refused
>>> -- with
>>> reviewer feedback -- by each of them), it would cause reviewers a lot of
>>> work. (Say if there are 3 reviewers per paper and you submit it
>>> sequentially
>>> to 4 journals, you would already occupy a dozen reviewers, while none of
>>> them would benefit of the work already done by others, since they
>>> don't know
>>> about it.) Also, if you re-submit a text sufficiently often, it
>>> becomes more
>>> and more likely to be accepted somewhere by pure chance, almost
>>> regardless
>>> of the quality of the paper, I would presume.
>>>
>>> The only chance to avoid that would be more openness, not less, i.e.
>>> publishing all versions of a paper from the first submitted one (or, at
>>> least, the last negotiated version of each paper), without allowing the
>>> authors to pull out. Not sure if we want to go this way, but blaming
>>> "openness" for the shortcomings of the current approach strikes my as
>>> definitively wrong.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes -------
christian@siefkes.net -------
>>> | Homepage:
http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog:
http://www.keimform.de/
>>> | Peer Production Everywhere:
http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
>>> |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
>>> UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
>>> would also stop you from doing clever things.
>>> -- Doug Gwyn
>>>
>> --
>> ****
>> Dr Mathieu O'Neil
>> Adjunct Research Fellow
>> Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
>> College of Arts and Social Science
>> The Australian National University
>> email: mathieu.oneil[at]
anu.edu.au
>> web:
http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
> --
> ****
> Dr Mathieu O'Neil
> Adjunct Research Fellow
> Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
> College of Arts and Social Science
> The Australian National University
> email: mathieu.oneil[at]
anu.edu.au
> web:
http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
>
>