Parallel Paper Submission

[Anand Venkataraman]

>> 4) I love journals like "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - B" 
>> because many of the papers include reviews at the end. It turns out 
>> that some of the reviews are very critical and really good. I often 
>> find myself reading the reviews before reading the paper! Of course, 
>> since the reviews get published and CITED, people make an effort to be 
>> constructive, soundly critical and not make fools of themselves. This 
>> is a great model - slow but good.
>
> I think this is a good idea. It will cut down the number of terrible

I too think this is a fantastic idea.  It simultaneously solves two
problems -- that of reviewer "remuneration" and that of "malicious/bad
reviews".

The problem, however, is the loss upon publication of anonymity of the
reviewer.  But why would a reviewer want to remain anonymous unless he/she
gave in a malicious review?  In my own case at least, I have wished on one
occasion that one of four reviews a paper of mine received got published
with the reviewer's name on it.  I have also wished on more than one
occasion that the author of a paper I had reviewed knew my identity when
reading my review.

The only other issue I see here is that "reviews written to be published"
and those written to "improve the paper" tend to be quite different in
character.  But I guess this is a simple matter to address.  The reviewer
can simply be requested to relook at the final submission with instructions
not to suggest more changes, but rather to submit the final review for
publication.  Isn't this how the JRSS handles it?

&