There's value in this post, but also especially in the lengthy comment thread that follows. The premise here is that the associate editor of an academic journal writes, "it is my strong suspicion that the peer review system is finally broken beyond reasonable repair." So what can be done? Suggestions range from overhauling the system to something called slow philosophy. These days, though I am frequently asked, I rarely complete reviews. At first, I didn't want to support subscription-based journals. Also, journals stopped caring whether I was qualified. Then they treated it as an obligation after I've published a paper. But you know, we don't need a review system any more, at least, not in the sense of two blind reviewers deciding whether a paper deserves to see the light of day.
Today: 0 Total: 1124 [Direct link] [Share]
