Parallel Paper Submission

[James Hammerton]

Hi,

I've followed this discussion with some interest. It seems to me the
main problem people are trying to address is the amount of time taken
in the reviewing process. 

In my opinion, the way things work now is fine, the long times
taken by the review process aside. Speeding up the review process
isn't so difficult though if things are handled electronically. 

I'm one of the editors for a special issue of the JMLR, and we managed
to get the reviewing process done and notifications sent out inside 3
months.

The deadline for papers was 2nd September, we gave a 5th November
deadline for reviews to be sent back to us and we planned
notifications for the 16th November, but we slipped back a week on
that timetable due to some late reviews. 

The JMLR normally gives reviewers 6 weeks to return their reviews and
gets a relatively quick turnover as a result. I don't see why more
journals can't operate like this -- even if the final publication is
in print rather than on the web.

I don't think the idea put forward for authors choosing their own
reviewers is a good one -- there's a conflict of interests there. 

It seems to me that the ideas for pools of reviewers to whom papers
get submitted is interesting but may be too complicated in practice.

I'm not sure there is any pressing need to change from the current
model, as opposed to finding ways to speed it up (e.g. by handling
things electronically and using tight review schedules).

James Hammerton