[JoPP-Public] JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 3, Issue 6

Mon Apr 16 12:56:33 CEST 2012

Hi Mathieu, all the rest,

The ending of my mail got a bit strange, because I sent the mock-up and not the real one I had written. Oh well. I will only make one more brief response to your answer Mathieu, then I will leave it at that. 

>This does not mean that reviewers have no impact - in fact the radical openness (publish original subs, publish >reviews) ?may constitute a disincentive to publish as some authors may not wish to have it known how much their >original submissions needed revision let alone their low signals.

My understanding was that we would be LESS restrictive in accepting articles than a traditional journal, not that we would LET GO of all criteria and then use the signals as the sole means of distinguishing good from bad. If we go down this route, we will be swimming right against the tide of academic career-making. Think about it, what happens when anyone with a draft they cannot get published discover that they can send it to JoPP and put a peer-reviewed publication on their CV. The signals will be bad, ok, but the signals do not go up on the CV. The scenario of us being spammed by bad drafts is perhaps a bit extreme (it will take time for the 9-to-5 academic to find out about our journal, after all), but more realistic is that editors will have less purchaise when asking authors to spend another month of perfecting their text, just to (maybe) win another point in the signaling system.

I admit that I slept-in a bit during the earlier discussions about the peer review process on the mailinglist, so my sudden awakening to this discussion is a bit late in the day.

Johan