Chris and I are different in many ways. First of all, I still eat cheese. And to misunderstand Charlton Heston reviews, you can lift it up in my cold hand. In addition, as with dairy consumption, the defense of doing so will continue to review the manuscript before publishing.
I would have reviewed about 50 reviews for 15-20 other journals to start my review. I don’t have much experience sitting on the editorial committee. Patient It’s enough not to regret it recently. My approach is fair and constructive, and my goal is to help the author to improve the manuscript, even if the author recommends rejection. I don’t identify myself from my author, but I don’t worry if people are countries. (This is usually very easy. My reviews are urged to quote Webb et al.)
Chris successfully defends himself for the hypocrisy of still sending a manuscript to a journal with a peer review before publishing. Publishing in that journal is the necessity of career, and his view is the journal’s decision to use a fellow review, and he will do so without himself. The main reason for continuing review It will be ~ Be a hypocrite: I want a review to my colleagues because I want the manuscript to be reviewed.
Dr Strange Comment, or how to stop and love to learn Reviewer 2
Preliminary publishing colleagues cannot think of mining publications that have not been improved overall. Even one of my manuscripts was “terribly dull” was helpful. It realized that I did not bring the interesting aspects of the work, and stimulated me to modify the manuscript so that the published version (hopefully!) This feedback can be provided after publishing, but in this way, I don’t have to worry about putting a barking person in a public domain, and readers spare that they slog through the dull version of the paper.
Another reason for preferring individual and anonymous feedback provided by the preliminary publishing review is that the reviewer is highly trusted in his opinion. The knowledge that only a small number of people will read opinions is beneficial to those who are afraid to put their heads on the railing to publicly criticize others’ works. This is especially important when junior researchers often offer criticism of influential professors’ research.
There are many advantages in reviewers. Especially for junior researchers, reading and critical assessment of colleagues can help improve your practice. Another advantage of the review is that there is a list of things to constantly expand like everyone. The promise of providing a review is very helpful in identifying the current literature.
Given the virtue of reviewing my colleagues listed above, I don’t think that the preliminary publication fellow review has been fundamentally broken, as some people argue. This is not to say that it is perfect. I am waiting for a fear story waiting for eight months to reject the desk, and a reviewer who has not clearly read the paper. But I do not mean that we must abandon the entire system. In the rest of this post, we talk about why we think we should move to a completely new publication, and some ways to improve our systems. (Exemption clause: This is inevitably my personal opinion based on my own anecdote. Your anecdote may be different.)
Chris argues that it will replace the pre -public colleague review after publishing. This system has advantages and Christ is clearly expressed. But I am somewhat skeptical. The main problem of pre -disclosure review is the time for the process, and it is unbelievable that the system will be faster when the system reaches the decisive version of the paper. Anyway, taking out the published manuscript will progress slower without irritation. It is true that the version of the paper can be used faster. But it is not clear that the non -defined version of all manuscripts will be beneficial. Of course, it is important to spread the results as soon as possible, but the way for a method such as the work paper series can be used without distributing the peer review before publishing.
Mixture
Regardless of the details of the proposal, there are two important factors for those who want to create an alternative to the current peer review system before publishing. First, review of pre -publishing colleagues is often criticized as ‘gatekeeping’. However, it is important to admit that the journal provides a useful signal of quality, topics and novelty. Signals are incomplete and have problems to be solved, but they are essential and inevitable considering the amount of research produced around the world. In all new systems, the research community will find a way to create a new signal to filter some articles that a given individual should read in the rest of the part.
Not illegal row
Second, I think that the reform of the research publication system should be considered that there are actors who are not related to the interests of the research community. There are companies that extract a large amount of rental income from researchers and universities. I don’t specify the name of the individual company, but I will use the umbrella term ‘Bastards’. Given the amount of danger, we can’t believe that Bastards will not find a way to extract as much cash as possible from the new system. We have already seen this happen by public access reform. Without opening research to the public and reducing lip -off subscriptions, researchers have changed to expensive pay walls, where thousands of people are charged for the privilege of being able to disseminate their work. I would like to welcome the proposals that they would not exist and that I would remove them. But these suggestions should be enough to surpass the well -sleeping guys who can lose a lot.
I always see the bright side of life
In order to cope with the pessimistic view of the above, I would like to conclude in several ways that can help us improve the perfect system as a research community. First, we need to find a publishing system for health economics. We are our own discipline and that we are suitable for physics, medicine, or ‘economics’ are not necessarily effective for us. We should not be afraid of divergence.
As a community, as a health economist, we need to discuss more reviews of our fellow review process and good reviews we believe. We must also provide better education and maps for new (and new) fellow reviewers. I have my opinion on creating a good review and how to be a good reviewer. But I also know that I have a much smarter colleague than me who has a much better idea to benefit. Health economics will be very beneficial to discuss ideas for fellow review. Perhaps HESG can be used at least as a forum for early discussions in the UK.
The flag of the peer reviewer is the deepest
But in the health economy and other regions, the most fundamental problem of the pre -publishing fellow review system depends on the lack of resources. If the editor and the reviewer are expected to work for free, it is not surprising that the work is not always the highest standard. If you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys, but most journals don’t pay peanuts. The review is also expected to be carried out on a full time job (in fact, it is usually considerably more than regular workers). Since review and editing are expected to be part of the academic profession, it must be an obvious part of a contract assigned. Perhaps this will be somewhat naive given the constraints of our institution. But if you don’t ask, you don’t get it, and I think this will have to campaign.
At the end of the day
Finally, I think it should be open to new initiatives and ideas that will help to improve the health economy publishing process. Despite the debate in favor of the current state, the new colleague review page of the blog has been successful and we hope to provide a useful alternative and necessary competition for the existing publishing process. In the meantime, if you want to continue to submit through standard pre-prubication review: Webb et al.
The author thanks the anonymous reviewer for useful opinions.
