Parallel Paper Submission

[Mike Titterington]

------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------


>> 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



> 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?


------------- End Forwarded Message -------------


I think that it is worth clarifying the JRSS practice. It is not
really true that the journal publishes referees' reviews of papers.
What happens is that the RSS holds about 10 meetings per year at 
which certain papers are 'read' and discussed. Versions of the verbal
discussions and any written contributions sent in soon after the meeting
are lightly edited and are printed, followed by a rejoinder from the authors
of the paper.  It is very likely that some of the discussants are people
who acted as referees, and possibly some of the points made in the referee
reports are reiterated in the discussion, but not necessarily.  Anyone
at all is at liberty to submit a discussion contribution, whether or
not they have reviewed the paper.  These discussion papers are carefully
selected with a view to their being likely to stimulate a lively
discussion, as well as being 'scientifically important'. I'd agree with
Nando that the discussion can be at least as interesting and stimulating
as the paper itself!

Maybe I can add one or two points, from the point of view of an editor.

1. I can't imagine coping with parallel submissions. Handling x incoming
   submissions per year is bad enough. The thought of 4x or even 2x is
   frightening. I have to side with Grace's original reaction to the proposal!
   
2. It is hard to envisage any easy alternative to the present system.
   It is important to have a strong, conscientious and knowledgeable group
   of associate editors, whose joint expertise covers the journal's range
   and who can express a cogent opinion on any paper they are sent; this
   means they either can act, in effect, as the sole referee (a practice that
   helps to speed things up) or can adjudicate reliably if multiple referees
   provide conflicting reports.
   
3. The issue of rewarding referees is difficult, although I believe some
   journals offer free issues as 'payment'. I think there's more to it than
   pure altruism. If one wants one's own work to be efficiently and promptly
   reviewed then it seems fair to repay this by contributing some time to
   refereeing other people's work. The journal I'm involved with does print
   an annual list of referees, as an acknowledgement, and this sort of practice
   does provide some small public recognition.
   
   
Mike Titterington.




===================================================================

D.M. Titterington,
Department of Statistics,
University of Glasgow,
Glasgow G12 8QQ,
Scotland, UK.

mike at stats.gla.ac.uk
Tel (44)-141-330-5022
Fax (44)-141-330-4814
http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/~mike