Another possible pitfall I can see is that PubCred accrual rates would depend on 1) the breadth of one's research specialty, 2) the ebbs and flows of "hot" topics in any given field, and 3) the baseline volume of submissions in any given field. This way, different researchers could end up having disparate amounts of accrued PubCreds, regardless of effort, making the process arguably unfair.
Thiago Sanna F. Silva Postdoctoral Fellow - University of California at Santa Barbara / University of Victoria http://thiagosilva.wordpress.com On 2010-07-22, at 8:08 AM, Amartya Saha wrote: > Its a good idea; however there is a possibility of the quality of reviews > deteriorating, whereby reviewers may not assign the time and effort required > for an indepth review, as their main aim would be to get as many "PubCreds" > as possible. > cheers > Amartya > > > Quoting Jeremy Fox <[email protected]>: > >> The peer review system is breaking down and will soon be in crisis: >> increasing numbers of submitted manuscripts mean that demand for reviews is >> outstripping supply. This is a classic "tragedy of the commons," in which >> individuals have every incentive to exploit the "reviewer commons" by >> submitting manuscripts, but little or no incentive to contribute reviews. >> The result is a system increasingly dominated by "cheats" (individuals who >> submit papers without doing proportionate reviewing), with increasingly >> random and potentially biased results as more and more manuscripts are >> rejected without external review. >> >> In the latest issue of the ESA Bulletin (July 2010, v. 91, p. 325), Owen >> Petchey and I propose a classic solution to this classic tragedy: >> privatizing the commons. Specifically, we propose that instead of being free >> to exploit the reviewer commons at will, authors should have to "pay" for >> their submissions using a novel "currency" called PubCreds, earned by >> performing reviews. We discuss how this simple, powerful idea could be >> implemented in practice, and describe its advantages over previously >> proposed solutions. >> >> The article is available at >> <http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325>. >> >> Owen and I are very serious about wanting to see this idea, or a suitable >> alternative, implemented. We have set up a petition at >> <http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fix-peer-review/>. Please sign if you >> support this idea, at least enough to want to see it further discussed. The >> petition site also has a link to the article, and a blog where we'll be >> updating on progress of the idea and responding to comments. >> >> PubCreds are already set to be discussed by the ESA Publications Committee, >> and by numerous other ecology journals. If you're as frustrated as Owen and >> I by the recent deterioration of the peer review process, now's the time to >> speak up and take action. Please sign the petition, and pass it on to your >> colleagues and students. >> > > > > www.bio.miami.edu/asaha
