Timeline for Getting nervous refereeing a paper
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2011 at 14:19 | comment | added | Benoît Kloeckner | My limited experience tells me that the cheaper the journal is, the most competent the proof editors are. Probably, both are correlated to the academic/non-profit publishing. | |
| Dec 2, 2011 at 0:27 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Yes, Mr Springer and Mr Elsevier should employ competent proof editors in the fields they publish in. | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 22:44 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | You are right that this aspect is often overlooked. I am not an editor in any journal (too early in my career for that), but if I were one I would insist on the journal's production team doing it. Proofreading and typesetting is more or less the only things journal do in-house to justify the big money they cash in, so in my humble opinion they should at least do it properly. | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 15:35 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | While I agree that it's not really the responsibility of the referee to fix the English, I know from experience that in most cases, if I don't fix the English, nobody else will (or at least nobody else will do as good a job). The other mathematicians in the supply chain will think it's not their job, and the non-mathematicians will be hampered by their lack of knowledge of mathematics. So I usually try to fix the English myself. | |
| Dec 1, 2011 at 10:22 | history | answered | Federico Poloni | CC BY-SA 3.0 |