So, any suggestions for an improvement in the system?
I think one constraint in the current system is that reviewing is unpaid
work, where you at most get some credit if you are known to belong to the
reviewers of a well respected journal. Right now the journal system is in the
process of change as net publications are emerging and challenging the
traditional paper journals, so presumably this might be the time to look for
new "business models" for peer review too.
I am fond of the idea of review boards, groups or reviewers placing their
seals of approval (or denial, for that matter) on papers without being tied
to journals. Instead journals publish papers that have been approved by
respected review boards, and the review information might also be available
over the net. What remains to be figured out is how to make this profitable
for the reviewers (so they want to do it) without introducing risks of
biasing them through payment.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:56 MDT