@gpollara@academicchatter This would be a great idea if every study of peer review ever had not found that peer review is totally unreliable and decisions mostly come down to review selection...
@paulralph@academicchatter true - though however iffy a review may be (and usually they are ok), there are always some good / interesting points raised that grudgingly do actually improve the manuscript by addressing. Seems a waste not to make use of and acknowledge that input. #academicchatter
@gpollara@academicchatter Yes it is a waste to ignore the good points but there's no effective way of retaining the useful feedback withhold saddling the paper with the toxic, destructive, nonsensical garbage. It gives the reviewer too much power to demand force authors to incorporate incorrect changes.
If reviewers share their comments publicly, linked to a public preprint, journal editors can work from this source and don't need to rely on anonymous info transmitted by the authors.
Problem only is that (at least in my fields, related to fundamental biological reseach), a lot of researchers don't dare or cannot afford to comment publicly.
@grimmiges@HansZauner@academicchatter yes I thought the same. Many in the field revel in the anonymity of tough peer review. If they had to think their comments maybe seen publicly, may not be such a bad thing!
Also in reality, who's got time to also read peer review comments?! #academicchatter
Scientifically, it paid off. Because of my usually incruciating but signed reviews, e.g. a cooperation started that much advances until this day our knowledge about oaks and beeches.
Professionally, there's absolutely nothing to gain from it. The appreciation of colleagues (incl. authors) never translates into job offers.
Add comment