Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
  1. I just learned about Rubriq, a commercial service of peer-review independent from journals. In a word: pay 500$ to get a review you can use to be accepted in journals. More details on teh Scholarly Kitchen: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/05/an-interview-with-keith-collier-co-founder-of-rubriq/

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2013

    So someone has done (using money) what Tim Gowers suggested (using quid-pro-quo) in http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/a-more-modest-proposal/ It looks interesting, but the fees seem pretty high for mathematicians. It might have some uptake in richer fields.

  2. Similar but whith money coming from participating journals and advertising: http://www.peerageofscience.org/public/howworks_summary.php

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2013

    Ack, Peerage of Science is a terrible name given the standard English meaning of peerage.

    The biggest difference I see between Rubriq and Peerage of Science is that Rubriq assigns reviewers to an article, while Peerage of Science lets any member review any paper they would like. I’m not sure which approach is more fruitful. On the one hand, if I were an editor I wouldn’t trust Rubriq to do a particularly good job of picking reviewers. The PoS approach is clearly a lot more open and flexible. On the other hand, it is more vulnerable to abuse, and even if there’s no deliberate abuse it changes the basic question. With the traditional approach, the test is what a few carefully chosen reviewers think of the paper. In a more open system, it becomes whether the paper attracts enough interest that some people give it positive reviews without irritating anyone enough to prompt them to review it negatively. I.e., I imagine the extreme opinions would become more prominent. That could be good or bad, but it’s at least different.