Timeline for Proper way to deal with papers you've already refereed.
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2019 at 3:40 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 10, 2019 at 13:28 | |||||
| Dec 14, 2017 at 21:25 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 14, 2017 at 23:01 | |||||
| Nov 25, 2017 at 15:19 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 25, 2017 at 17:04 | |||||
| Oct 22, 2017 at 18:54 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 23, 2017 at 6:21 | |||||
| Aug 6, 2011 at 14:09 | answer | added | paul garrett | timeline score: 9 | |
| Feb 22, 2011 at 13:01 | history | edited | Arend Bayer |
added tags
|
|
| Feb 21, 2011 at 23:49 | comment | added | Dan Ramras | When rejecting a paper that you feel is publishable, but belongs in a different journal, why not suggest some journals that you feel the paper would be appropriate for? If the author follows your advice, and you get the paper back from an appropriate journal, you can suggest acceptance. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 23:15 | answer | added | Sándor Kovács | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 22:22 | answer | added | Ryan Budney | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 22:17 | answer | added | Ben Webster♦ | timeline score: 20 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 22:15 | answer | added | Pete L. Clark | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 22:11 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Feb 21, 2011 at 21:18 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | @Igor: it's not the refereeing itself (though that's not entirely useless), but the fact that you would be actually recommending that person's knowledge and work. I'm thinking that, early on, any opportunity to be a blip on someone's radar can only help. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 20:49 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @Thierry: in what way do you think refereeing is good for young researchers' career? | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 20:06 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | I am surprised that this comment has not been made yet: you could be proactive and suggest other reviewers with the necessary expertise (possibly clearing this with them first!). Don't forget that editors may not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the who's who in you field, so they'll keep sending you papers simply because you may be one of the few people they know who has the necessary expertise. In particular, pass it on to younger researchers, it's good for their career. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:52 | answer | added | Felipe Voloch | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:22 | answer | added | no name | timeline score: 28 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:21 | answer | added | Igor Rivin | timeline score: 17 | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:03 | history | asked | anonymous | CC BY-SA 2.5 |