Signatures 252 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 › »
-
151
Name: Toos Van Noordwijk on Jul 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
152
Name: Anonymous on Jul 27, 2010Comments: I agree, the peer review process needs to be fixed! Also it seems that some reviewers pre-judge a submitted article just by looking at the authors name and /or which lab they belong to. The reviewer should not be able to see who wrote the article!!!Flag
-
153
Name: Dr. Enrique Navarro on Jul 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
154
Name: David M Watson on Jul 27, 2010Comments: Fantastic ideaFlag
-
155
Name: Martijn Bezemer on Jul 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
156
Name: Denis REALE on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
157
Name: Rieks Van Klinken on Jul 28, 2010Comments: Great idea!Flag
-
158
Name: Dave Coltman on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
159
Name: Wolfgang Forstmeier on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
160
Name: Marco Festa-Bianchet on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
161
Name: Douglas B Sweetser on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
162
Name: Peter Arcese on Jul 28, 2010Comments: An interesting idea that, if efficiently managed, could equilibrate work-load. But because young scientists will have done few or no reviewers prior to submitting their first few papers, newcomers can not be penalized by the process; i.e., by requiring a co-author with credits in order to submit when newly established.Flag
-
163
Name: Niels Dingemanse on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
164
Name: Eli S Bridge on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
165
Name: Jonathan Wright on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
166
Name: Andy Fenton on Jul 28, 2010Comments:Flag
-
167
Name: Tanya Handa on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
168
Name: Cailleau on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
169
Name: Ola Fincke on Jul 29, 2010Comments: This is a great idea and one that is long over-due.Flag
-
170
Name: Sarina Macfadyen on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
171
Name: Beatrix Beisner on Jul 29, 2010Comments: Interesting idea that is worth discussing. My biggest worry is how to deal with overly superficial reviews. Too easy to whip a quick one off and get credits.Flag
-
172
Name: James Stegen on Jul 29, 2010Comments: I fully support the idea proposed by Fox and Petchey, and sincerely hope that as a collective we ecologists can impart a restructuring of the review system.Flag
-
173
Name: Anne Charmantier on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
174
Name: Gimenez on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
175
Name: Thomas Lenormand on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
176
Name: Dr. William Strosnider on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
177
Name: Boulinier on Jul 29, 2010Comments: Ok, but "Responsabilizing" rather than "Privatazing"Flag
-
178
Name: Alastair Wilson on Jul 29, 2010Comments:Flag
-
179
Name: Roger PRADEL on Jul 30, 2010Comments:Flag
-
180
Name: Simon Chamaillé-Jammes on Jul 30, 2010Comments: Worth discussing the idea. But I believe there would be less problems if we were giving credit (real credit, not PubCreds) for (hopefully good) reviews (i.e. vs. publications). I suggest a 'Review your reviewer' website editable by editors but viewable by all - number of reviews requested, number accepted, quality of the review. Humm...who wants to be publicly a crappy reviewer?Flag
-
181
Name: Gerlinde De Deyn on Jul 30, 2010Comments: Great initiative! I hope that this discussion will also make authors behave more responsible with respect to their role as referees even before a payment system is installed. Posting this petition widely (e.g. on society websites, conferences, ...) may perhaps help to increase peer pressure.Flag
-
182
Name: W.H.G. Hol on Jul 30, 2010Comments:Flag
-
183
Name: Francois Massol on Aug 1, 2010Comments:Flag
-
184
Name: Nickolas Waser on Aug 1, 2010Comments: A formal system of credit and debit for reviewing is long overdue, and now is possible to implement. It will need to evolve and be fine tuned as we learn what works and what does not, but that is not reason to delay.Flag
-
185
Name: Jérôme Mardon on Aug 1, 2010Comments:Flag
-
186
Name: Gabriel Cornic on Aug 2, 2010Comments:Flag
-
187
Name: Elly Morrien on Aug 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
188
Name: Jen Coughlan on Aug 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
189
Name: Richard Vogt on Aug 3, 2010Comments: I like this idea, but share the concern about early-career scientists not being asked as often to give reviews. Perhaps there could be some sort of forum where the opportunity to review could be solicited, which editors could use as a resource to find new reviewers?Flag
-
190
Name: Yvonne Buckley on Aug 4, 2010Comments: I see this system as a useful way to both boost reviewing within the publication system and as a way to get recognition for the often considerable reviewing & editing tasks many academics do.Flag
-
191
Name: Guillaume Sainte-Marie on Aug 4, 2010Comments:Flag
-
192
Name: Steven Vamosi on Aug 4, 2010Comments: I agree that it's time to start a serious discussion about the current state of the peer review system. PubCreds is an interesting proposal, and I do not think the issue of junior academics earning currency is as serious as some seem to indicate. I worry a little about more folks writing quick/shallow reviews simply to earn points, but that should not be an insurmountable issue. Looking forward to seeing how this all plays out!Flag
-
193
Name: Volker Rudolf on Aug 4, 2010Comments: I like the general idea and once the minor issues are worked out I like to see it implementedFlag
-
194
Name: Anonymous on Aug 5, 2010Comments:Flag
-
195
Name: Refregier on Aug 6, 2010Comments:Flag
-
196
Name: Stefan Dullinger on Aug 9, 2010Comments: Good idea!Flag
-
197
Name: Gavin Siriwardena on Aug 10, 2010Comments: Anyone with experience of trying to find referees in a journal-editing role knows that something needs to be done about this problem and this is a smart and sensible solution.Flag
-
198
Name: Torbjörn Tyler on Aug 11, 2010Comments:Flag
-
199
Name: Bengt Nihlgård on Aug 11, 2010Comments:Flag
-
200
Name: Stefan Andersson on Aug 11, 2010Comments:Flag