Parallel Paper Submission

[John Koza]

Hello Connectionists:

There is a very simple way to solve the real problems that the proponents of
parallel paper submission are trying to address.  It does not involve any
new complicated machinery (e.g., clearinghouses) and its does not involve
(after initial implementation) any more work for already-busy editors and
reviewers.

A couple of years ago, there was one journal in the field of genetic and
evolutionary computation. Like most journals in the computer science field,
it had a lengthy review process.  Papers languished for months on the
editors desk before being sent out for reviewers. Reviewers were typically
allowed 6 - 9 months or more to write their reviews. The editors then took
many additional months before reaching a decision.  Submitting authors were
frustrated with having their work "tied up" waiting for a (possibly adverse)
decision on whether their paper would be published.  This is, of course,
particularly significant for new academics who need publications in order to
earn tenure.  It was almost true that the author had forgotten that he had
written the paper by the time it was published.

When the IEEE starting considering creation of a new journal in the field of
genetic and evolutionary computation, I talked to the editor-designate and
convinced him to follow the practice of the biological and medical sciences.

The nearly universal practice in the biological and medical sciences is
exclusive submission combined with quick review.  For example, Science
demands that an author submit the paper exclusively to them; however, in
exchange, Science promises the author a cursory yes-no decision (based on
topic suitability and general appearance) in a couple of weeks and a final
decision (after detailed review by peer reviewers) in about 6 weeks.  I
subscribe personally to over a dozen journals in the biological and medical
sciences.  They all follow this approach (as do other journals that I read
in the library). I would say the overall average time that I see is about
70 - 90 days.  In fact, many of them loudly advertise (in ads for their own
journal and as part of the author submission instructions) their average
review time.   I've even seen competitive ads from the journal themselves
pointing out their average time versus the average time for "brand X".

There is nothing inconsistent about a rapid overall schedule and quality of
reviewing or editing.  The fact is that it doesn't take the reviewers or the
editors any more time or effort to maintain a "biological sciences" kind of
schedule than a schedule where reviewers are given 6 - 9 months and editors
habitually take another 6 - 9 months to reach a decision.  It is simply of a
matter of when people spent their time.   Having reviewed hundreds of
papers, I can say that I read the paper and write the review on only one of
two moment --- independent of whether I've been 30, 60, 90, or 180 days to
do the rwview.  If the paper really grabs my attention, I do it the day or
so after I receive it and then just sendmy review in.  If not, I do it on
the day or so just before the review is due.

Later, when the Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines journal was being
created, I also convinced the publisher and editor-designate to follow the
same kind of schedule. That was much easier because the IEEE journal had
already established and maintained its quick schedule.   Over time, the
original journal in the field of genetic and evolutionary computation has,
because of competitive pressure, moved toward this same kind of schedule.
(There is, of course, a one-time transitional effort required to get onto a
faster schedule).

The fact is, in a rapidly changing field, unnecessarily long publication
schedules are a significant disservice to the field.  They impede advances
in the field because new ideas get out more slowly.  They hamper the careers
of individual authors.  The simple way to move from the current "lose-lose"
situation to a "win-win" situation a rapid schedule.

Of course, once one journal in a field adopts this kind of common sense
schedule, Darwinian natural selection takes over and produces significant
competitive pressure on the others.

John R. Koza

Consulting Professor
Biomedical Informatics
Department of Medicine
Medical School Office Building (MC 5479)
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305-5479

Consulting Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
School of Engineering
Stanford University

Phone: 650-941-0336
Fax: 650-941-9430
E-Mail: koza at stanford.edu
WWW Home Page: http://www.smi.stanford.edu/people/koza

For information about field of genetic programming in general:
http://www.genetic-programming.org

For information about Genetic Programming Inc.:
http://www.genetic-programming.com

For information about GECCO-2002 (GP-2002) conference in New York City on
July 9 - 13, 2002 (Tuesday - Saturday) and the International Society on
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation visit: http://www.isgec.org/

For information about the annual Euro-GP-2002 conference on April 3 - 5,
2002 in Ireland, visit http://evonet.dcs.napier.ac.uk/eurogp2002