Timeline for On referee-author communications
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
37 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2017 at 3:57 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 24, 2017 at 13:20 | |||||
| Jan 3, 2011 at 9:26 | answer | added | Piero D'Ancona | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 at 8:39 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 at 1:45 | comment | added | Dr Shello | It is amazing to me that there are no journals implementing a scheme like the one proposed. Do any of the referees here have any insight as to why not? | |
| Jan 3, 2011 at 0:31 | answer | added | Joseph O'Rourke | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:44 | comment | added | darij grinberg | ... the author and the referee (already for transparency reasons; corruption is quite an issue in life sciences), but if we force all correspondence between author and referee to pass through the editor as a relay and potentially become stuck at that relay, we are letting the bureaucracy take over the process. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:43 | comment | added | darij grinberg | @Gerhard: You seem to assume that the editor is able to distinguish "the referee is floundering with the paper because he is not competent" from "the referee is floundering with the paper because the paper is badly written" or "the referee is floundering with the paper because of some trivial misunderstanding which would be immediately cleared up by a 2-lines email exchange between referee and author". I doubt this is the case, and whenever it is not, your approach will often turn out to be a waste of time and e-ink in itself. I think the editor SHOULD be able to read the emails between ... | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:43 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | Discussion on this question opened on meta: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/876/… | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:35 | comment | added | darij grinberg | @Yemon: There still is a difference to the traditional model: In my model, there is no "editor" who is supposed to supervise the process and be the main link between author and reviewer. This difference is central to the question at hand. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:32 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @darij: our comments crossed so I think I understand your position a bit better now. With regards to my comments about the arXiv, I was not referring to crankery, but to low-level specialist stuff that is either incorrect or missing the point, or just IMHO rather superficial -- you will forgive me if I don't actually point the finger at anyone right now. (My point is that I fear the signal/noise ratio will get too low; and if one corrects for this by letting Eminent Specialists wield quality control, then you seem to be back where you started with the traditional model.) | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:28 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Andreas, I believe the editor should have more control of the process. For example, a referee who may be floundering with the paper should probably not be refereeing it. The editor should know this, and the author should not, unless the editor thinks the author should. This is not always because of the quality of the information, but always because of the price of the ink or the electrons. So a simple notification to the editor is not enough; the editor should decide if the questions are appropriate to pass on. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.01.02 | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:26 | answer | added | Allen Knutson | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:12 | answer | added | Patrick I-Z | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:56 | comment | added | darij grinberg | @Yemon: I have addressed this in the last part of my comment. I am not totally convinced that it is going to work, but at least we can easily do much better than a blind internet popularity contest. Also, I am not sure about your "low-quality stuff I see on the arXiv" remark. My experience with cranks and math spam is that, usually, it is ridiculously easy to filter it out. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:53 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | I like Igor Belegradek's suggestion. I'd prefer, though, that the editor not merely have access to a log of the interchange but be notified (by e-mail) that an exchange is going on. Presumably, the web system could be organized so that, when it sends a question to an author, it also sends the editor a message saying "referee n of paper m by author x has sent the following question to the author" (and similarly for an author's replies). This wouldn't require any action by the editor (except maybe moving the message to an appropriate folder, or deleting it as the system would keep a copy). | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:52 | comment | added | darij grinberg | etc.". You could google for the names and find out how much these comments are worth. (2) Viewers should be able to view weighted votes. Of course, this should not be done ad absurdum (too much weighting would allow for de-anonymization), but I want to know how much academically endorsed members value some particular paper, and not just how much the average visitor values it. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:50 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Put another way: I am not wholly convinced that popularity/trendiness = worth | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:50 | comment | added | darij grinberg | ... lives up to the standards of this journal, as confirmed by two anonymous referees who will never get to take any responsibility for their review and probably never get any financial or other benefit from it either, except for a boost of their egos, but they have skimmed throug this paper and found the pictures cool"), we would get something of much more honesty and therefore of much more use: "(insert name here): liked the proof of Theorem 1, haven't read further; (insert different name here): seems correct, but proof of Theorem 6 relies on unwritten finite-generated assumptions... | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:49 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | I'm not a big fan of anonymity, but if you want junior faculty at all involved in the refereeing process, it is indispensable. How are you going to get someone's candid opinion otherwise? | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:47 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Darij: given some of the low-quality stuff I see on the arXiv, and read about as appearing in the proceedings of a faraway country of which I know nothing, do you really want a publishing model where everything is discussed and voted on? and do you believe that the highest-voted questions and answers on MO are really 7 times better than others? | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:45 | comment | added | darij grinberg | As for Igor's question (or rather, proposal), of course I sympathize with it, but I reject its very premise - that we need to fix the peer review system of mathematical journals, rather than replacing it by a completely new one. What comes to my mind is, for instance, an arXiv-like database with phpBB2-like discussion, MO-like voting, and some additional structure such as the following one: (1) People with high rep or academic endorsement can have their comments appear directly next to the paper, so instead of the rather small information that we get from a journal publication ("this paper... | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:44 | answer | added | Michael Hardy | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:44 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | I agree with Andres Caicedo. I've sent e-mails asking questions about preprints, but, as far as I can remember, never when I was the referee. When I'm refereeing, I send my questions via the editor. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:37 | comment | added | darij grinberg | @Michael: An honor/shame culture isn't quite the best environment for mathematical research. If referees cannot directly communicate with authors because editors might be "offended", we've got an inefficient system - that's all. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:36 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:34 | comment | added | darij grinberg | @Daniel: I would assume that, in most cases, things that are not clear to the referee are usually not actual gaps in the proof but bad writing on the author's side. This isn't a question of "confidence in the result". | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:33 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | Some fields (e.g. maybe biology) use double-blind refereeing, so the referee doesn't know who the author is. Primus (in which I have a forthcoming paper) is a math education journal that does that. This would make Andy Putnam's suggestion unworkable without going through the editor. I like that suggestion. Might some editors be offended if the referee did this without consulting the editor first? | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:11 | comment | added | Andy Putman | When I'm refereeing, I often have the urge to create a fake gmail account and email the author my questions. However, I've never had the guts to actually do this (and probably never will). | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 20:41 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | @Igor Rivin, some think that "anonymity for referees" makes the referee report more objective. Of course, a referee could ask questions privately like you suggest, but those questions are sometimes ignored especially if the issue is tricky or sensative. On the other hand, nobody can ignore a question from a referee. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 20:40 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | @Igor Rivin: :-) | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 20:34 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @Andres Caicedo: you mean you send such email but NOT when refereeing? | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 20:31 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | @Igor Rivin: I send those emails all the time, nothing to do with refereeing. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 20:25 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | The idea suggested is a good one, but I don't actually believe in the usefulness of anonymity for referees. It either impairs the flow of communication or is bypassed (how many people here have written/received a message along the lines of: I was reading your interesting preprint, and I have the following questions...) | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 19:58 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | @Daniel, I do not suggest a "live chat" between a referee and an author. There is no time pressure for the author to reply immediately. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 19:55 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | I cast a vote against closing. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 19:48 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | This is a bit of a blog question, given to discussion rather than to answers. I'm extremely interested; I'm not downvoting; but I'm voting to close. Because I can't resist stating an opinion: as an author, I would make an idiot of myself on such a system, because I'd feel pressured to give quick, wrong replies to show confidence in my result. I often e-mail complete rubbish, for example. A system which favours a gradually thought-out response to a referee report works to my advantage. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 19:40 | history | asked | Igor Belegradek | CC BY-SA 2.5 |