Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
“As editor, I receive the submissions, I contact the reviewers, I
send the submission to the reviewers, I bug the reviewers when they
haven't sent the reviews in on time, I receive the reviews, I read the
reviews, I file the reviews, I decide which paper goes into the journal
on the basis of the reviews. The publisher has no hand whatever in the
peer review process.”
I think we are looking at a difference in disciplines. For biomedical
journal of any size, the publisher’s responsibilities include
creating and managing an online database of manuscripts and reviewers,
supporting the salaries of assistants who shepherd peer review, paying
rent and utilities for the the journal’s university office,
supporting and upgrading the systems for online peer review, paying for
all mailing costs, etc.
The publisher does not intrude in editorial decisions...but provides the
infrastructure and personnel that enable peer review to happen at all.
That being so, publishers are a key part of the research enterprise, and
suggestions that they should be silent on matters of pertaining to IRs
are inappropriate....and very counterproductive to those who want to IRs
to take off.
On 12/1/06 8:33 AM, "Christopher D. Green" <christo_at_YORKU.CA> wrote:
As editor, I receive the submissions, I contact the
reviewers, I send the submission to the reviewers, I bug the
reviewers when they haven't sent the reviews in on time, I
receive the reviews, I read the reviews, I file the reviews,
I decide which paper goes into the journal on the basis of
the reviews. The publisher has no hand whatever in the peer
review process.
Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
10332 Main Street #158
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 591-6544
FAX (703) 383-0765
pbanks_at_bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com
www.associationpublisher.com/blog/
Received on Sat Dec 02 2006 - 21:29:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:38 GMT