Subject: Re: [HM] History of mathematics BY whom
From: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon (jgc@adinet.com.uy)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 11:15:55 EST
Subject: anonymous referees
> There was a discussion on "The future of peer review" on
> sci.math.research in July 1999.
Thanks, Franz. I just read it, and I append below three of those
postings. But I'm especially interested in reactions within the [HM]
list, for *history of mathematics* seems to be particularly sensitive
as far as *peer review* is concerned. This subject is not about the
"history of mathematics" itself... rather it is about WHAT (and HOW)
we (= they) inform (us) about our subject, not a minor point after all!
Regards,
Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
---------------
: Subject: The future of peer review
: Author: Greg Kuperberg <greg@math.ucdavis.edu>
: Organization: UC Davis Department of Mathematics
: Date: 9 Jul 1999 00:00:23 -0700
:
: [...]
:
: They certainly should. A journal has nothing to lose and a lot to gain
: by attaching the name of the referee and the referee's summary to each
: accepted article. A journal has very little to lose and a lot to gain
: by just having links to xxx instead of distributing the papers itself.
: And if a journal does not distribute its papers, it then has nothing to
: lose and a lot to gain by accepting any article for review, regardless
: of whether the author or someone else submits it, and regardless of
: whether the article is previously published.
:
: To a journal editor these may seem like radical reforms. I see them
: not only as timely ideas, but even as an inevitable slippery slope
: in the post-archive world. I believe that as journals compete for
: submissions and attention they will inevitably move in this direction.
:
: [...]
:
: /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
: / \
: \ / Visit the Math Archive Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
: \/ * Mathematics should be selected and not censored *
:
:
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
: Subject: Re: The future of peer review
: Author: Roberto Maria Avanzi <mocenigo@exp-math.uni-essen.de>
: Organization: University Essen, Germany
: Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:09:51 +0200
:
:
: On 9 Jul 1999, Greg Kuperberg wrote:
: >
: > They certainly should. A journal has nothing to lose and a lot
: > to gain by attaching the name of the referee and the referee's
: > summary to each accepted article.
:
: This would really increase the level of a journal. As a friend
: and very famous mathematician told me "everybody wants to be
: Inventiones, but they lack Inventiones' board of directors and
: reviewers".
:
: It HAS happened that a reviewer rejected a paper, then used some
: of the ideas of the rejected work to write his own... especially
: if he was coming to something similar but came to a stale.
: These might be isolated cases, but anonymity does not guarantee
: impartiality.
:
: Moreover, journals should really start to make public also the
: names of the referees that _reject_ a work. Especially in a time
: where reviewers decrease in number and are often overloaded with
: work, I fear there will be an unavoidable, ehm, decrease in
: attention and understanding of the submitted papers. To make
: everything public will only make everybody - including authors -
: more responsible.
:
: Just my opinion
: Roberto
:
:
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
: Subject: Re: The future of peer review
: Author: Greg Kuperberg <greg@math.ucdavis.edu>
: Organization: UC Davis Department of Mathematics
: Date: 11 Jul 1999 14:02:10 -0700
:
:
: Roberto Maria Avanzi <mocenigo@exp-math.uni-essen.de> wrote:
: ...
: > Moreover, journals should really start to make public also the
: > names of the referees that _reject_ a work.
:
: I disagree. To 'reject' a work may be no more than to decline to
: endorse it. A referee or reviewer has the right to have no association
: with a paper, positive or negative. This would be especially true in a
: hypothetical post-archive world where anyone might review anyone else's
: paper, but the principle also makes sense now.
:
: What I don't like is that a journal can pass the buck to an anonymous
: referee in lieu of explaining why it published a particular paper.
: This is a feeble guarantee of quality compared to non-anonymous review.
: In fact I suspect that journals' reputations are mostly sustained by
: self-selection, i.e., that most authors are reluctant to send weak
: papers to prestigious journals.
:
: [...]
:
: /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
: / \
: \ / Visit the Math Archive Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
: \/ * Every trial is a free trial *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:31:34 EST