Signatures 252 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 › »
-
51
Name: Martin W Skov on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
52
Name: Machon Nathalie on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
53
Name: Rambaud Maëlle on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
54
Name: Dr Andrew J King on Jul 21, 2010Comments: Excellent proposal, that I fuilly support.Flag
-
55
Name: Emmanuelle Porcher on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
56
Name: Anonymous on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
57
Name: Gladieux Pierre on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
58
Name: Dario Martin Benito on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
59
Name: Frank Van Veen on Jul 21, 2010Comments: As an associate editor for several journals I am very much aware of the growing problems with finding willing and able referees for each submission. I am also aware of a fair number of 'cheating' individuals in the system: those that publish regularly but never, or rarely, agree to review for the journals in which they publish (incidently, some of these are also the first to complain about delays in the review process). Therefore, I wholeheartedly support Petchey and Fox's proposal as a fair system to address this problem.Flag
-
60
Name: Professor Duncan Maskell on Jul 21, 2010Comments: I think this idea is very interesting and may well work. I do however think that we sell ourselves short by doing the work of the journals for them for no financial reward. In any other sector we would be paid good hard cash to do a review. After all, journals do make profits, and we are tacitly helping them to do this!Flag
-
61
Name: Olivier Restif on Jul 21, 2010Comments: A very thoughtful yet simple proposal worth exploring.Flag
-
62
Name: Yves Bas on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
63
Name: Joaquin Hortal on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
64
Name: Brad Anholt on Jul 21, 2010Comments: I would like to see this fully discussed. I am concerned because co-ops can be subject to odd economic behaviour such as deflationary spirals. These can, however, be managed.Flag
-
65
Name: Lucas Joppa on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
66
Name: Alain Paquette on Jul 21, 2010Comments:Flag
-
67
Name: Jim Van Belzen on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
68
Name: Kalinkat, Gregor on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
69
Name: Travis Hinkelman on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
70
Name: Donatella Zona on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
71
Name: Randy Bangert on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Will this encourage referees to only criticize aspects they are qualified to comment on or will referees continue to criticize items they are not qualified to comment on? How will this tragedy be fixed? randyFlag
-
72
Name: Anonymous on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
73
Name: Benjamin Colteaux on Jul 22, 2010Comments: I believe that this idea, and others like it, should be thoroughly reviewed and discussed as a measure to stop up the "leaks" in the system of peer review.Flag
-
74
Name: Richard Stevens on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
75
Name: Amartya Saha on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Great idea; i hope reviews that one has done in the past count towards PubCreds. However, one issue stemming from this is that the quality of reviews could plummet when individuals do not assign the time for an indepth exhaustive review, as their main impetus would be to get as many PubCreds as possible....Flag
-
76
Name: Nick on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
77
Name: Matteo Brilli on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Great. We spent a lot of time in doing reviews and then we also have to pay for publishing our own papers! I think it's great, something similar to the parallel currency existing in switzerland. MatteoFlag
-
78
Name: Petr Smilauer on Jul 22, 2010Comments: This is very good idea, indeed. I believe if only the ESA and BES journals adopted it, the other ecological journals would follow the lead.Flag
-
79
Name: Julien Martin on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
80
Name: Michael Reiskind on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Clearly a solution must be found. I am not completely convinced Pubcreds is the only solution, but at least it is a start.Flag
-
81
Name: Jonathan Davies on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
82
Name: Anthony Joern on Jul 22, 2010Comments: There are many creative elements in this proposal that at the very least deserve serious consideration.Flag
-
83
Name: Holger Kreft on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
84
Name: Alex Olvido on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Nice idea. I'd like to see it happen in my lifetime, i.e. before 2060?Flag
-
85
Name: Elisa Biondi on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
86
Name: Hannah Buckley on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
87
Name: Julie Byrd Hebert on Jul 22, 2010Comments: I believe the details of the article, in particular, are important in this process, especially the trial period to determine whether or not the idea is feasible.Flag
-
88
Name: Christopher Wood on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
89
Name: Yasmin Lucero on Jul 22, 2010Comments: There needs to be more incentive for reviewers. I personally enjoy reviewing papers, but still avoid doing more than the minimum necessary because the activity is entirely unrewarded for my job.Flag
-
90
Name: Maria Sepulveda on Jul 22, 2010Comments: I totally support this!Flag
-
91
Name: Joe Nohner on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
92
Name: Tadashi Fukami on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Great idea well worthy of discussion. If enough journals agree to participate, it seems worth trying at least the information gathering (detail #1 in Jeremy and Owen's article).Flag
-
93
Name: Carolyn Kurle on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Very interesting proposal.... I think it merits serious discussion!Flag
-
94
Name: John Griffin on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
95
Name: Duncan Menge on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
96
Name: Nigel Pitman on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
97
Name: Maurel on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
98
Name: Tjisse Van Der Heide on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
99
Name: Anonymous on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
100
Name: Lindsay Turnbull on Jul 22, 2010Comments: In principle, I think this is a great idea, but there needs to be some discussion about its implementation.Flag