Subject: Re: [HM] History of mathematics BY whom
From: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon (jgc@adinet.com.uy)
Date: Mon Jan 10 2000 - 20:42:54 EST
Subject: anonymous referees
:
: For a few years I agreed to serve as a referee for xxxx, and I was
: appalled at the manuscripts I was sent to review. I didn't find
: a single one that was acceptable without major revision. Most were
: shallow and *very* poorly written.
:
The passage above prompted a few remarks, and thoughts. Example:
Articles to appear in xxxx go through a n-step evaluation and preparation
process.
1 Manuscripts submitted to xxxx are sent to $n$ (2 or 3) anonymous
referees. The manuscript is carefully reviewed by the referees,
and on the basis of their reports the editor decides whether the
article should be published. The editorial office communicates
this decision to the author, with extracts from the referees'
reports, if appropriate.
2 ...
Now... my 'naive' question is: why ANONYMOUS referees all the way through?
In my opinion, this could be, particularly, a dangerous pill to take within
the realm of the history of mathematics' (and, yes, not only there) serious
research. Your reactions (_a favor o *en contra*_) are welcome!
Kind regards,
Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 10 2000 - 21:57:07 EST