Hello There, Guest!  

Meta-selection: selecting the selection criteria for appointing reviewers

#11
Like Piffer above, I am staunchly opposed to credentialism. The current review team is well-qualified to judge who is educated about a field, and there is no need to rely on a proxy such as having a degree from some official institution. I also think that credentialism goes against the very spirit of science. Traditionally, science has been practiced by a very wide variety of people, many of them doing it as a hobby. This has been seriously hampered by the practice of extremely pricey journal subscriptions in recent decades. The open access (and open science by extension), which I consider myself a part of, is attempting to reverse this undesirable state of affairs.

If some kind of formal requirement must be made, it should be a standardized test of relevant knowledge. But in most cases, it will suffice simply to read the person's writings on e.g. a blog. This is how Piffer and I selected the initial review team. Primarily based on writings on Human Varieties.

Disclaimer: I have no academic degree and I'm not pursuing a relevant one either (I am a linguistics student).
 Reply
#12
"If some kind of formal requirement must be made, it should be a standardized test of relevant knowledge."

Fine. That would be an acceptable alternative, although a test would not measure things like professional integrity. It's possible to be very intelligent and also very dishonest. Those two qualities are not exclusive.

In my opinion, our reviewers should be reviewed from time to time. If some of them are not doing their primary job (reviewing manuscripts), while using this forum as a megaphone for their views, they should lose their status as reviewer.
 Reply
#13
(2015-Feb-09, 20:43:56)Peter Frost Wrote: "If some kind of formal requirement must be made, it should be a standardized test of relevant knowledge."

Fine. That would be an acceptable alternative, although a test would not measure things like professional integrity. It's possible to be very intelligent and also very dishonest. Those two qualities are not exclusive.

In my opinion, our reviewers should be reviewed from time to time. If some of them are not doing their primary job (reviewing manuscripts), while using this forum as a megaphone for their views, they should lose their status as reviewer.


I think a more reasonable requirement should be that a reviewer has been published on international peer-reviewed journals.
I am not sure about punishing those that are not reviewing manuscripts, as I do not see what harm they do in not doing so and they're not paid to do this but they do it using their unpaid free time.
 Reply
#14
"I am not sure about punishing those that are not reviewing manuscripts, as I do not see what harm they do "

The harm is analogous to that of the Russian and Nigerian spammers we have to block from time to time. Our forum provides some people with a free megaphone. It's free advertising.

I agree that reviewing is a thankless and often onerous job. I'm simply saying that we should remove "reviewers" who have not done any reviewing and who seem uninclined to do any. I don't see the difference between that kind of person and a spammer.
 Reply
#15
(2015-Feb-10, 00:44:09)Peter Frost Wrote: "I am not sure about punishing those that are not reviewing manuscripts, as I do not see what harm they do "

The harm is analogous to that of the Russian and Nigerian spammers we have to block from time to time. Our forum provides some people with a free megaphone. It's free advertising.

I agree that reviewing is a thankless and often onerous job. I'm simply saying that we should remove "reviewers" who have not done any reviewing and who seem uninclined to do any. I don't see the difference between that kind of person and a spammer.


I do not think they're spammers. Reviewers are simply people who have passed our screening and meet the requirements to review papers. I do not think this forum is free advertising. It's simply a place where people can exchange ideas and promote their own views.
 Reply
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)