In article <May.26.09.48.54.1993.12158 at net.bio.net>, kristoff at net.bio.net (David
Kristofferson) says:
>what happens when a good student applies to ten universities and gets
>accepted by nine??? The other eight activate their blacklist, right
>8-)? Just out of curiosity, why do journals get a monopoly right on
>submitted manuscripts? I realize that they have simply created this
>policy, but it seems like authors are bowwing to the monopoly power of
>the press. What advantage does it give to the researcher? It might
>be interesting to put some competition in this system ... (dream on
>8-). Of course, then reviewers would actually have to review papers
>promptly or risk good manuscripts going elsewhere, and, since
>reviewing is mainly a volunteer effort and reviewers less susceptible
>to the pressures that could be laid on a paid reviewer, perhaps the
>whole system would be in chaos????
Yes, as Doug Fitts points out, the knowledge that the paper under review
is a serious and unique submission should tend to make a reviewer more
conscientious than otherwise. Papers would be devalued if multiple submission
were widely practiced. My point is that the risk/benefit balance for cheating
in the modern competitive world of research (i.e. simultaneous submission to
multiple journals) seems to be very low. Given human nature, it probably occurs
and I am surprised that Editors are not barking about it.
Sincerely, Don Forsdyke
