Refereeing in Crisis?

[from: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec 12, 2011]

Refereeing in Crisis?

By Nigel Thrift

One of the things that often shocks new journal editors is the difficulty that they face in obtaining referees for papers. It is often necessary to approach a string of referees in order to obtain the requisite number of references. Most annoyingly of all, sometimes a person who has just submitted a paper to a journal then refuses to referee for it or has the nerve to complain about delays to the reviewing process occasioned precisely by the search for referees. And that is before we get to the people who are approached who never even deign to reply. More seriously, at least from my experience of editing a journal, the problem is getting worse.

Journal refereeing is one of the key elements of peer review. It depends on reciprocity. Without that essential element of give in order to take the quality of reciprocity will gradually fade away.

Make no mistake, there are many people who faithfully review almost everything that they are asked to look at. These people are the backbone of the system and we should all thank them: there should probably be a memorial set up for some of them. But others are quite happy to let these trustworthy folk take the strain. Indeed, through the indifference of the free riders, the load on these folk is often made higher.

So why is the problem getting worse all around the world?

[…]

[continue at The Chronicle of Higher Education]

Advertisements
Tagged

One thought on “Refereeing in Crisis?

  1. Editorial says:

    A paper was submitted to this journal. It was discussed by the editor and the coeditors
    and a decision was made to proceed to review. Six possible referee names were
    suggested. Three were asked. One said no, one said yes, one didn’t reply. Two more
    were asked — one immediately and one after the `no response’ had been chased to no
    avail. One replied, one didn’t, and finally one report arrived. The final original referee
    on the list of suggestions was asked; another two names were thought of, and they were
    asked too. One of these said they would do it. Three reminders later this generated
    a second report. Eight referees asked; six months; two reports; one disgruntled author.

    [continue http://www.envplan.com/epd/editorials/d2606eda.pdf ]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: