Comments on: The insane world of academic publishing http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/08/25/the-insane-world-of-academic-publishing/ Daniel Lemire's blog is about life in academia, research in Computer Science, wondering how we can reconcile fast databases and algorithms with the informal and asemantic nature of the world around us. It is broadcasted from Montreal (Canada). Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:22:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Cyril http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/08/25/the-insane-world-of-academic-publishing/comment-page-1/#comment-50127 Cyril Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:20:23 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/08/25/the-insane-world-of-academic-publishing/#comment-50127 The criticism of scholarly publishers does not seem particularly new. In fact I often saw academic/professional publishers (like IEEE) be promoted as better examples than the purely commercial publishers (like Springer or Elsevier). W.r.t. anonymous reviewing, one interesting evolution would be to publicize the name of the reviewers for a paper, without tying them to the actual review (i.e.: Dear Author, your paper was reviewed by Dr. X, Prof. Y and Dr. Z. The three reviews are, in random order: ...). That way it would still be hard to tell which reviewer wrote which review, but it may promote a sense of responsibility and accountability among reviewers. Better yet, publish the names of the reviewers (but not the actual reviews) with the paper: This would in a way provide reviewers some much needed recognition. Finally, w.r.t. rebuttals, that's one advantage of submitting to journals vs. conferences: The journal process usually allows for going back an forth a few times between authors and reviewers. Unless the paper is turned down right away, in which case the first reflex should be author introspection rather than reviewer bashing anyway. The criticism of scholarly publishers does not seem particularly new.

In fact I often saw academic/professional publishers (like IEEE) be promoted as better examples than the purely commercial publishers (like Springer or Elsevier).

W.r.t. anonymous reviewing, one interesting evolution would be to publicize the name of the reviewers for a paper, without tying them to the actual review (i.e.: Dear Author, your paper was reviewed by Dr. X, Prof. Y and Dr. Z. The three reviews are, in random order: …).

That way it would still be hard to tell which reviewer wrote which review, but it may promote a sense of responsibility and accountability among reviewers.

Better yet, publish the names of the reviewers (but not the actual reviews) with the paper: This would in a way provide reviewers some much needed recognition.

Finally, w.r.t. rebuttals, that’s one advantage of submitting to journals vs. conferences: The journal process usually allows for going back an forth a few times between authors and reviewers.

Unless the paper is turned down right away, in which case the first reflex should be author introspection rather than reviewer bashing anyway.

]]> By: Ragib Hasan http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/08/25/the-insane-world-of-academic-publishing/comment-page-1/#comment-50123 Ragib Hasan Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:18:20 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/08/25/the-insane-world-of-academic-publishing/#comment-50123 I think even in double-blind reviewing, there should be the option for rebuttals. Some conferences such as CHI and SIGMOD already have this. It gives the authors one more right of reply to incorrect reviews. In many cases, I have seen reviewers completely misread the paper and make an incorrect objection, which can be readily refuted. I think even in double-blind reviewing, there should be the option for rebuttals. Some conferences such as CHI and SIGMOD already have this. It gives the authors one more right of reply to incorrect reviews. In many cases, I have seen reviewers completely misread the paper and make an incorrect objection, which can be readily refuted.

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/08/25/the-insane-world-of-academic-publishing/comment-page-1/#comment-50120 Daniel Tunkelang Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:31:09 +0000 http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/archives/2008/08/25/the-insane-world-of-academic-publishing/#comment-50120 In my experience, the dynamics of academic publishing hinge on academics whose careers depend on publication in prestigious journals. In this dynamic, an individual author isn't doing the journal any favors by submitting a paper to it; to the contrary, the journal makes the decision as to whether it will bless the author by publishing it. And, collectively, the journal provides a service to the academic community by creating an infrastructure for evaluating researchers based on the quality of their submissions. There's a lot to be criticized about this system, but I don't think it's fair to heap all of the blame on the journals, when they seem to be doing exactly what the universities want. Indeed, it's no surprise that the journals depend on armies of volunteers from said universities. In my experience, the dynamics of academic publishing hinge on academics whose careers depend on publication in prestigious journals. In this dynamic, an individual author isn’t doing the journal any favors by submitting a paper to it; to the contrary, the journal makes the decision as to whether it will bless the author by publishing it. And, collectively, the journal provides a service to the academic community by creating an infrastructure for evaluating researchers based on the quality of their submissions.

There’s a lot to be criticized about this system, but I don’t think it’s fair to heap all of the blame on the journals, when they seem to be doing exactly what the universities want. Indeed, it’s no surprise that the journals depend on armies of volunteers from said universities.

]]>