---- david alonso <[email protected]> wrote:
<stuff cut> > So as a reviewer, if you want to publish your own review reports > once the original paper has been published, since, as Hal said, > the reviews are copy-right materials by their own authors by default, you > should be allowed to do it. <stuff cut> > A related question is that, as a referee, I have always found very > frustrating that all referee's work and scientific communication > back and forth with authors until final acceptance is mostly lost. <stuff cut> > My frustration comes from the fact that, after writing a long review that > took me time and work, the final accepted paper is usually > unable to reflect my contrasting points of views from those of the authors, > even I may think that authors' contribution is somehow worth > to be published. <stuff cut, much of which basically comes down to the fact that the author wants what he as a reviewer had to say in his review to be read by the paper's readers, and that journals should work out a way for it to be published also. > In most journals, anyone who wishes to write a comment on a paper may do so, send it to the editor, and ask for it to be published. I assume this would apply to a reviewer, whom I would advise NOT to reveal in said comment that he (she) had reviewed the paper negatively in the first place. Just join in the normal processes of paper critique that most journals allow. Authors will normally be allowed to respond to the critique, and both critique and response will be published (if the review process and the editors find that they should be). David McNeely
