In my opinion, only technical and editorial changes should be done by publishers. For scientific quality, let everyone assumed to be responsible, and each paper should be published without any review process. Quality of papers should be calculated based on citation index and along with how many reads and downloads with some kind of algorithm. In this way, a scientist will compelled to be more responsible for his/her data and he will try to publish best authentic results. What is your opinion?
The editor has its own functions. There is a technical editor. There is a literary editor. There is a proofreader. And they all work with the text so that it is best written.
The need you are writing about doesn't exist in fact. Please, pay attention that nothing prevents you from publishing your paper as pdf on RG or on any other document repository (e.g. zenodo.org). What's more - these platforms are DOI enabled, so these papers are first class citizens of citation world. It only depends on other researchers whether they will cite you.
In my opinion the peer reviewing process of an article is very useful although i cannot imagine how one can verify a numerical result for example without reconstructing the program.
The editors are experienced people who do research in their area in a really high level. If somebody reads an article he believes that the written text in it is true and it does not have any mistake. One has not got enough time to check each article and maybe if a failure occurs in one of them it comes out via discrepancies. It must happen just very seldom. So the peer reviewing process is very important.
It's true. It's hard for reviewers to criticise methodology and results in most cases anyway, so why not use your method? I think it's good
There are pros but there are lot of cons in our current reviewing process.
(1) stealing ideas while reviewing papers,
(2) rejecting papers based on whose is competitor,
(3) Giving idiotic comments and rejecting papers
(4) approving papers without reading if it belongs to big named guy or your good friend
(5) And why to waste precious time of 3/4 reviewers just for crap I produce or you produce, it does not belong to them
But most of the issues mentioned above are addressed by double-blind-review. Also, often the reviewer gets financial rewards for their job.
This is only my voice in this discussion, as normally I advocate open science. What's more, I even published some papers in the way I mentioned above.
hi Anna Małgorzata Kamińska, you have stated the following statement
"Also, often the reviewer gets financial rewards for their job". what are the scientific journals you know that pay for reviewing to the reviewers? Please share, thanks.
This is the most often in case of reviewing conference papers that are published as conference proceedings. I know cases regarding Springer series.
But this is nothing uncommon. If you are more interested in this topic search on www, e.g.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20930/are-there-any-journals-that-pay-reviewers
The editor has its own functions. There is a technical editor. There is a literary editor. There is a proofreader. And they all work with the text so that it is best written.
It is tough to find out own mistakes. Our individual views can differ from others. When experts view will match with our study, it contributes to the society.
It is clear that the person responsible for the publication is the researcher who is showing the development and results of his research. However, journals should review the documents they send for publication through experts. It is a guarantee for the reader that part of the origin of the author as well as the care of the magazine to publish the best works.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers