Signatures 252 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 › »
-
101
Name: Aaron Thierry on Jul 22, 2010Comments: This strikes me as a proposal that should seriously be considered as an alternative to the current system.Flag
-
102
Name: Stew Plaistow on Jul 22, 2010Comments: Couldn't agree more. Something has to be done.Flag
-
103
Name: Florence Hulot on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
104
Name: Jeff Houlahan on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
105
Name: Craig See on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
106
Name: Steve Carpenter on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
107
Name: Ronaldo Christofoletti on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
108
Name: Jonathan Cole on Jul 22, 2010Comments: I like the Pubcreds concept. I also think that you have maybe underplayed the work of associate editors for jounrals in the formulaiton. Making an acceptance or rejection decision is, I agree, less work than doing a review. But dealing with an accepted ms is quite a bit more work than writing a review.Flag
-
109
Name: Andy Purvis on Jul 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
110
Name: Wilco C.E.P. Verberk on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
111
Name: Stuart Borrett on Jul 23, 2010Comments: Though there may be challenges to implementing this idea and some will still find ways to cheat, I think this is a clever solution to a growing problem.Flag
-
112
Name: Aitor Ameztegui on Jul 23, 2010Comments: Good idea!Flag
-
113
Name: Anonymous on Jul 23, 2010Comments: I would give it a try!Flag
-
114
Name: Montgomery Carter on Jul 23, 2010Comments: I absolutely think that peer review is an essential part of submitting articles in the first place.Flag
-
115
Name: Kevin Mayes on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
116
Name: Jon Havenhand on Jul 23, 2010Comments: Excellent idea!Flag
-
117
Name: Nathan Brouwer on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
118
Name: Carmen Bessa-Gomes on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
119
Name: Anonymous on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
120
Name: Ryan Vogel on Jul 23, 2010Comments: I think the current peer review system needs improving. In this article it is clear there is no certain solution as of yet, but this is the beginning of revolutionizing the system.Flag
-
121
Name: Julie Messier on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
122
Name: Krisztian Magori on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
123
Name: Eric Berlow on Jul 23, 2010Comments: I support the creative and insightful proposal put forth by Jeremy and Owen. If we don't act soon, the quality and reputation of our science will seriously suffer.Flag
-
124
Name: Christopher Moore on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
125
Name: Clelia Sirami on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
126
Name: Micael Jonsson on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
127
Name: Jens O. Riede on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
128
Name: David Wardle on Jul 23, 2010Comments: Although there are many issues that would obviously need to be carefully thought through before something like this was implemented, I like the basic idea of this a lot. How about especially tough penalties for those who do not have the courtesy to even respond to review requests to say that they are unavailable?Flag
-
129
Name: Blake Matthews on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
130
Name: Julia Blanchard on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
131
Name: Anonymous on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
132
Name: Anonymous on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
133
Name: Nicholas Mirotchnick on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
134
Name: Anonymous on Jul 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
135
Name: MIGUEL ALCAIDE on Jul 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
136
Name: Jorge Cassinello on Jul 24, 2010Comments: A clever solution to this perverse tragedyFlag
-
137
Name: Jessica Forrest on Jul 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
138
Name: Stephanie Yelenik on Jul 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
139
Name: Franck Jabot on Jul 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
140
Name: Dan Flynn on Jul 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
141
Name: Anders Knudby on Jul 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
142
Name: Dennis Hansen on Jul 25, 2010Comments: A good place to start discussions on how to fix this. As already voiced by others, I would like to see some sort of 'entry-level credit' assigned to junior first-/second-/third-time submitting researchers. Another interesting way of weighting/paying credits could be based on number of authors on the submission side of things -- a more 'expensive' payment to submit multi-multi author manuscripts could be a start? (if you have done enough to warrant being on the paper, surely you are happy to spend one of your pubcreds on it, even if you are the 16th out of 20 authors?).Flag
-
143
Name: Jana Petermann on Jul 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
144
Name: Christophe Thebaud on Jul 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
145
Name: Dr. Jürgen Dengler on Jul 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
146
Name: Oscar Godoy on Jul 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
147
Name: Martin Seto on Jul 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
148
Name: Pablo Ferreras on Jul 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
149
Name: Dr Richard Fuller on Jul 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
150
Name: Stephen D Gregory on Jul 27, 2010Comments:Flag