About this Episode
Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollars, why negative comments on peer reviews need to be normalised, plus much more.
Some more details:
- The pros and cons of collaborative peer review (in which all peer reviewers discuss the paper after all individual peer reviews have been submitted
- How technology can constrain journal operations
- The strange engineered delay in paper reviews (I doesn't take 2-3 weeks to review a paper)
- Michael's proposal for a system in which people can nominate they have time in the near future to review a paper and then papers can be sent to them so they're rapidly reviewed
- Journal submission interfaces
- Michael's take on paying peer reviewers
- Who owns peer reviews?
- Would negative (anonomous or not) comments on an open peer review report penalise authors in the future?
- Every paper gets negative peer-review comments, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad paper
- Michael proposes an explicit "speculation" section for papers, where authors get free reign to basically say whatever they want
Other links
- [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
- [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
- [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
- [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)
Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)
Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
- $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month
Episode citation
Support Everything Hertz