Recent toots concerning the peer review process inspired me to post the link to an essay I recently wrote on this topic: "Reviewing manuscripts on my terms."
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/davidjonfurbish/files/2013/06/Reviewing-Manuscripts.pdf
This essay is essentially encouragement to critically ask ourselves what we are doing and why.
[#]peerreview
[#]science
[#]academia
[#]earthscience
[#]scientificpublishing
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PhilSciProf@mastodon.online
@PhilSciProf hmm! I like the approach. But the insistence in having everything sent directly to you and having things your way doesn't scale. You could still do it slow, without breaking the universal imperative. But maybe your point is it shouldn't scale, and the electronic systems have enabled the scientific bloat. I guess that's fair.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chiasm@mastodon.online
@chiasm Agreed, my approach probably does not scale, at least not to the satisfaction of most publishers. And as I mentioned, elements of my approach might not be right for others. Also, "bloat" is the right word. At least in my field, much of what is published consists of relatively superficial least-publishable units aimed at satisfying the unreasonable expectations that are imposed mostly on young academics, rather than deeper work that fits within a clear, broader (theoretical) framework.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PhilSciProf@mastodon.online This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini