Signatures 247 total
-
1
Name: Owen Petchey on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Jeremy Fox on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Benjamin Kerr on Jul 16, 2010Comments: Wonderful idea-- 100% behind you on this!Flag
-
4
Name: Robin Snyder on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: William Stanley Harpole on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Daniel Bolnick on Jul 16, 2010Comments: Worthy of discussion, but I still suspect there may be other options. Biggest concern I have is for entry-level scientists who have no name-recognition and so are not invited to review as much. The debit approach may alleviate this somewhat, but ultimately some people may not be asked to review often enough to match their publication rate. Having no control over how often one receives invitations, they would be stuck once they reached their debit limit. What about paying either with review credits OR with $$? How do we ensure QUALITY reviews? The proposal creates an incentive for doing reviews, but not for doing thorough or insightful reviews.Flag
-
7
Name: Priyanga Amarasekare on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Mathew Leibold on Jul 16, 2010Comments: At least worth considering seriously...Flag
-
9
Name: Peter Adler on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
10
Name: Jonathan Shurin on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Justin Wright on Jul 16, 2010Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Ben Bolker on Jul 17, 2010Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Janneke Hille Ris Lambers on Jul 17, 2010Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Jennifer Dunne on Jul 17, 2010Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Anonymous on Jul 17, 2010Comments: This is an interesting idea, which merits discussion.Flag
-
16
Name: Colin Olito on Jul 17, 2010Comments: Hoo-Rah! i'm in Jeremy!Flag
-
17
Name: Jana Vamosi on Jul 18, 2010Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Joshua Tewksbury on Jul 19, 2010Comments:Flag
-
19
Name: Andrew Hector on Jul 19, 2010Comments: A very interesting suggestions will worth further discussion and consideration.Flag
-
20
Name: Dylan Childs on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Stuart West on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
22
Name: Hank Stevens on Jul 20, 2010Comments: Pubcreds sounds like a GREAT idea worthy of more discussion. While we are at it, how about double reviews or manuscripts and/or grant proposals?Flag
-
23
Name: Eoin O'Gorman on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Anonymous on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Colin Fontaine on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Ken Thompson on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Anonymous on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: Anonymous on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Bill Shipley on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Edd Hammill on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Tamara Romanuk on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Karthik Ram on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
33
Name: Mary O'Connor on Jul 20, 2010Comments: I think this is worth discussion and consideration.Flag
-
34
Name: Martin Solan on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Henry Louis Spach on Jul 20, 2010Comments: I agree with the petitionFlag
-
36
Name: Gustavo Carvalho on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Jason Tylianakis on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Anonymous on Jul 20, 2010Comments: As Head of Publications and manager of two peer-reviewed journals I am constantly reminded of the growing burden on reviewers who give their time and expertise to journals. The quality of the reviews is mostly good and very often exceptional. A system that has the potential to reward the individuals who support the scientific process by contributing robust reviews has my support. However, a credit system must also recognise the work of Editors and Associate Editors, whose contributions cannot be quantified by the number of reviews they undertake. Great debate btw.Flag
-
39
Name: Owen Jones on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
40
Name: Etienne Laliberté on Jul 20, 2010Comments: A challenging idea to implement, but a good idea. I support it.Flag
-
41
Name: Pedro Peres-Neto on Jul 20, 2010Comments: We need to discuss serious ways of fixing the system and proposals such as that are worth discussing.Flag
-
42
Name: Jason Donnell on Jul 20, 2010Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Michael Scott Long on Jul 20, 2010Comments: Scientists who publish technical articles through the peer review process should contribute by offering thorough reviews of their own, on a nonprofit, verifiable basis.Flag
-
44
Name: Adrian J. Ebsary on Jul 20, 2010Comments: Not only does this have the potential to fix some major problems in science publishing, but this gives scientists a venue to renew the public's sense of trust in the peer review system by generating a representative entity.Flag
-
45
Name: Owen Lewis on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
46
Name: Sam Seaver on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Jake Ferguson on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
48
Name: Hann-Shuin Yew on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
49
Name: David Thomas on Jul 21, 2010Comments: Superb idea, and should be extended to reviewing of research proposalsFlag
-
50
Name: Thomas Brey on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag