Subject: Re: [HM] History of mathematics BY whom
From: Romulo Lins (romlins@rc.unesp.br)
Date: Wed Mar 01 2000 - 17:42:10 EST
Dinesh Maheshwari wrote:
> My proposal for rectifying such a scenario was (and is) to publish the
> names and the evaluations of each of the referees for all the papers
> - rejected or accepted; with the names of the referees and the summary
> of their evaluations published in the technical proceedings, alongside the
> paper, for the ones that were accepted.
> And then a rating mechanism from the conference audience that would
> rate each of the papers presented so that the editor could prune out the
> referees for the worst rated papers.
> Also knowing the referees of each of the papers would enable the
> prospective readers, employers etc. to base their decisions on the basis
> of the credibility of the referees for the paper rather than the prestige
> of the conference.
I think Dinesh's is a very good idea, except for two things: (1) what
about rating the quality of the reviews of papers rejected if they (the
papers) are not known by the public?; and, (2) how do we deal with the
"big names" effect, ie, we know that many people in each community have
a quite blind judgement of what some of the favourites of that community
say.
Anyway, I completely agree with him that referees should have their
names and comments made known at least to the author(s), because the
writer(s) can do no harm to them (except in some macabre but unlikely
sense) apart from seeking revenge when refereeing a paper by the former
referee, in which case the proposed mechanism works with a very
convenient simmetry. Transparency is a very important general rule if we
want to prevent distortions: whenever people are not accountable for
what they do, fairness and effectiveness start fading.
In my specific profesional field (maths education) the problem of people
refereeing papers outside their area of expertise is huge, specially
because in many cultures (and I mean *many*) people seem to believe that
educational matters are basically a question of common-sense, and this
general feeling somehow (and unfortunately) can still be found in the
professional community.
The problem of very poor reports of review or referees who take too
little time to do it are non too uncommon, but many journals and
conferences are already tackling these problems very strongly.
As to refereeing hist of maths papers, I would think those general ideas
apply
all the best,
Romulo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 01 2000 - 17:46:29 EST