04 February 2009

Peer Review

Every now and then, I'm asked to help do anonymous review of science or engineering journal manuscripts.

For some reason I got a kick out of this paragraph (this is from the OSA):

Although this paper need not be exceptional, it should add significantly to the field for you to recommend acceptance or revision. Lately, a substantial number of papers have been submitted that can be called "not wrong" papers. These are papers that contain no errors, but they also lack any new and useful information that would move your field forward; they may provide no citable results, or document so little progress that researchers in your field will ignore them. These papers take up your time and ours; they clutter up the literature; and they do not advance research in the field. If you find this paper fits this description, you should recommend that the paper be rejected.

-g

No comments: