In modern time there are relatively very few single author papers. Most of the papers are multiple author papers. But the process of the review includes only several single reviewers . What do you think about possibility of multiple reviewer method ( team, institute etc. ). Does it is possible ?.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Maximum two to three reviewers are enough
Danilo - I like the idea - but I doubt it. It is complex enough to get 2-3 independent reviewers to contribute. To get a team of reviewers together i.e. principle reviewer on-wards - seems even more complex.
There are journals that use 4 reviewers already. My view is that it is not always easy to get reviewers on board. So trying to get more may delay the review process because of availability issues.
If a journal decides to have a team reviewer it will be on their own discretion or policy as long as it works.
To get the usual 2-3 reviewers is often difficult for many journals or specialities talkless of going for a crew of reviewers. Currently, a reputable journal, after two month-plus of the review process, wrote to us that they continue to struggle to find qualified reviewers for our submitted manuscript. Generally, as the number of authors and articles keep multiplying, say exponentially on daily basis, it's becoming pretty more difficult to push a paper through en route for publication after several months of waiting and series of appealing to journals. We're noticing this problem more than before and it's becoming a general problem.
Might be, it is from the reason, first publish and then allow other use it.
Personally, I prefer team work or groups for research with at least three reviewers, I think that it is standard procedure for publishing process.
Regards,
Emad
It is a continuous work that requires a large amount of time by one reviewer and is sure of the same performance.
I think the best option is to summarize all the reviews.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking