Parallel Paper Submission: Separate Refereeing and Editorial processes

[Bob Damper]

.. but it's not uncommon for journals to send submissions straight out to
graduate students, short-circuiting the advisor/supervisor.  Sometimes,
graduate students will ask the advice of their supervisor about how to
approach the review, but not always.

The reason students get asked to do such an important task when they
``lack the knowledge and wisdom to provide a fair review of novel ideas'',
to use Rob's words, is that journals are generally struggling to get
enough reviewers.  Editors and editorial assistants don't always know who
is who in the field, especially if the journal has a wide remit.  If a
grad student has recently published something relevant and it comes to
the attention of an editor seeking a reviewer, then they become fair game.

This shortage of good qualified referees is going to continue all the
time there is no tangible reward (other than a warm altruistic feeling)
for the onerous task of reviewing.  So, as many others have pointed
out, parallel submissions will exacerbate this situation rather than
improve it.  Not a good idea!

Bob.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, rinkus wrote:

> 
> 
> If people are genuinely interested in improving the scientific review
> process you might want to consider making it unacceptable for the
> graduate students of reviewers to do the actual reviewing. Graduate
> students are just that...students...and lack the knowledge and wisdom to
> provide a fair review of novel ideas.
> 
> In many instances a particular student may have particular knowledge and
> insight relevant to a particular submission but the proper model here is
> for the advertised reviewer (i.e., whose name appears on the editorial
> board of the publication) to consult with the student about the
> submission (and this should probably be in an indirect fashion so as to
> protect the author's identity and ideas) and then write the review from
> scratch himself. The scientific review process is undoubtedly worse off
> to the extent this kind of accountability is not ensured. We end up
> seeing far too much rehashing of old ideas and not enough new ideas.
> 
> Rod Rinkus
> 
> 
> 
>