Carrot works better 1

July 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

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments