----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 "/usr/local/etc/fm jrnlnote-list"... Can't create output
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by net.bio.net (5.65/IG-2.0)
id AA14718; Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:49:39 -0800
Message-Id: <9212240949.AA14718 at net.bio.net>
To: jrnlnote
From: marder at agri.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: Author's Rights
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:49:35 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: agri.huji.ac.il
In article <BzpvBE.4yA at mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, muriana at aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M.
Muriana) writes:
> and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on**
> the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the
> journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled).
> This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit
> to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews.
>> Merry Christmas,
> Peter M. Muriana
I've often thought the same myself. Actually I would go even further and
get the reviewers to write some brief comments to be published with the
paper. I know that Nature already almost does this in the the "News and
Views" author often reviewed the article(s) he discusses. But some formal
recognition of the reviewers' role is positive. Maybe also reviewers would
be more careful if they knew that their names were to be publically
associated with the articles they approve. I also believe that the
credibility of a publication would be increased by showing that articles
were scrutinised by well-known experts.
Regarding anonynimity for the authors, there are arguments in both
directions. One so-far unstated objection is the issue of credibility.
How much should the "reputation" of the author influence the reviewer?
(perhaps a provocative question here ...)
--
' Jonathan B. Marder
Internet: MARDER at AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL | Department of Agricultural Botany
Bitnet: MARDER at HUJIAGRI | /\/ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Phone: (08 or +9728) 481918 |/ \ Faculty of Agriculture
Fax: (08 or +9728) 467763 / P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
