Issues have been raised about peer review, open access, costs, reviewer bias and quality, fairness, and efficiency among other things. If you could change just one thing about research publications what would you change?
So the reviewer choice and ethics could solve many of the problems in this view - this makes sense as the reviewer is the core of the process. This idea makes me wonder if we could come up with metrics for renewer quality as a way to rank journals. This might encourage editors to make the greatest possible effort to get expert and fair reviewers.
If the reviewer quality is largely tracked by journal citation index metrics then it seems to me this is a strong argument that the journal impact is important as well as the individual pear citations. This is because the number of citations a given paper receives is in part dependent upon its subject and field whereas the quality of the paper at a high impact journal may by this argument be better as a result of a superior review process making for better quality control in general. I would argue that this idea if accepted makes the emphasis on journal impact factor more reasonable that I had previously considered it to be.
These links explain a new view:
http://ijaridea.com/Knowledge-Empowerment
http://ijaridea.com/Review-Acknowledgement
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication