Re: [visionlist] Reviewing deadlines [CVNET & VISIONLIST]

Dear colleagues,

First, thank you, MIchael, for bringing it up and for summing up your
conclusions from the debate.

I agree with all that you said but would like to add that the whole
thing is still nagging me. I know that the two-week default deadline is
meant to speed-up the process; and I have worked for many years as an
editor where I faced the decision for a first deadline. But I cannot
help but feel the two weeks are an indignity towards the work of
reviewers. They are, aren’t they? Particularly irritating for me,
therefore, was the reply of two editors (of journals that I respect
highly) here in the thread, saying that, since there will be delays
anyway, it is better to start-off with a low value. I.e. the two weeks.
Perhaps I am old-fashioned but this, to me, is an open invitation for
dishonesty. And in these difficult times for science, trust is
fundamental to what we do.

Yes — strategy. The two-week default appears to have been set in all
Elsevier journals. I do not like Elsevier but I do like Vision Research.
Two weeks ago, I got an invitation from an Elsevier journal and so
started my new policy of *rejecting every request with a two-week
deadline*. A few days later, however, I got another Elsevier 2-weeks
invitation. This time from Vision Research and for an author whom I
like. So I accepted, teeth clenched. Extending the deadline was granted
gracefully but it had the side effect that the electronic system had a
hiccup and threw me out. Oh well.

The upshot: As a community I believe we should speak-up to revert the
new turbo policy, in the interest of quality and reliability.

With my best regards,

Am 23.11.2016 um 10:08 schrieb Prof. Michael Bach:
> Dear Colleagues:
> To round up the fascinating wealth of comments by you, thank you, I’d just like to finalise it for me with 2 items:
> • Deadlines: personally, I´ll keep rejecting reviews, applying Jonathan’s words “anything less than 3 weeks is annoying and off-putting.” [Frequently, I return the review earlier, that’s not the point].
> • Reviewer “rewards”: Following Phil Tseng’s and Ravi Jonnal’s suggestions, and prompted by a recent review, I looked into
> Looks promising to me: Very easy to submit your reviews (if you’ve kept the “thank you” email, I often didn’t), the do seem to check thoroughly (they rejected some of mine which were just “thank you for agreeing to review” since I hadn’t kept the proper one; good!), they do this rapidly, and they have a nice web interface.
> One minor criticism: in their emails they use the “hidden link technique” (the actual link is different from the one you see), but many do this now, unfortunately. [In MacOS, hover above the link to see the true URL or click the disclosure triangle to get a preview.]
> I’m sure Publon could be gamed –shame on you:)–, since of course as always Goodhart’s law will come into play
> but it’s probably not worth it, and I also wonder about the long-term sustainability.
> Still, this does look interesting to me
> to serve as a little payback for our review efforts, since I’m not in favour of direct monetary remuneration for reviewing.
> Thanks to all and with my best regards,
> Michael


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s