[Air-l] Trouble with journals

[James Whyte]

Again, pure speculation.
   
  I seems to me it would eliminate such behavior because the rating and comments would be retained and the criticisms themselves would be subject to falsification. IMHO
   
  Let's not forget that the current system was developed in the absence of Netspace and computers and before there were 22,000 journals in every subject. 
   
  Also, objections to a system like this could be the same argument against wikipedia.
   
  I'm not suggesting that edit, reviewing and improving be dicontinued rather improved by a wider audience.
   
  James


Christian Nelson <xianknelson at mac.com> wrote:
  I've seen, heard about and personally experienced a lot of BS under 
the current review system.
Indeed, I just served as a reviewer for a paper that took on a theory 
developed by two members of the old boys network in the communication 
field. Despite the fact that it was a very good paper, and received 
thumbs up from two reviewers, it was rejected because it got thumbs 
down from the other two reviewers, both of whom were clearly the old 
boys whose theory was being skewered. But would your system change 
that? Under your system, these two old boys would simply have to sick 
all of their rabid former advisees on the poor author, drive his 
ratings into the ground, and then claim that the masses had spoken. 
There might be other reasons to promote your system, but avoiding the 
effects of the old boy network isn't one of them as far as I can tell.
--Christian Nelson


       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.