Carrot works better 1

七月 13, 2007

Had Marc Hauser and Ernst Fehr submitted their paper on reform of the reviewing process to a peer-reviewed journal ("Make all see that deadline matters", Opinion, July 6), it would probably have been rejected for being fundamentally flawed. Their proposal to speed things up uses only the stick.

Why should anyone agree to review if they risk punitive sanctions for being late (however valid the reason)? This proposed reform will merely hasten the perceived demise of peer review.

Perhaps the authors could usefully have considered the carrot instead. Here, the assiduous reviewer who spots the fundamental flaw and recommends major revision becomes a joint author for their valuable intellectual input.

Keith Richards
Cambridge

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.