[Journal] Re: question on OSGeo Journal

[Dan Putler]

Hi Micha,

What Dan has laid out is very consistent with the way most academic  
journals are run. The listing of submitted articles results in what  
is known as a "single blind" review process (where the reviewers know  
who the authors of the paper are). This is common in some  
disciplines. In others, "double blind" review processes are the norm  
(where neither the reviewers or the authors know who one another  
are). The double blind process is intended to reduce gaming behavior  
on the part of reviewers. Having said this, there are always  
potential conflict of interest issues. This is the reason why papers  
go to multiple reviewers, with no single reviewer having control over  
the process. This brings up the question of how many reviewers should  
the paper be sent to? In the leading academic marketing journals, the  
number of reviewers a paper is sent to has increased from three to  
four over the last ten years. I think one of the reasons that editors  
have done this is to mitigate reviewer conflict of interest problems.  
In general, minimum qualifications for reviewers are determined by  
the editor (or the associate editor in this case). The letter to a  
reviewer that accompanies a submission will typically ask the  
reviewer to return the paper if they feel they are not qualified to  
review it. In talking to editors, there is more of a problem of  
reviewers disqualifying themselves in cases where they shouldn't,  
then in not disqualifying themselves in cases where they should. Over  
time, editors tend to develop a list of reviewers they rely on based  
on the quality and timeliness of past reviews done by that reviewer.

Dan

On 26-May-07, at 5:07 AM, Micha Silver wrote:

> Hello Dan:
>
>
> Daniel Ames wrote:
>
>>
>> As for the review process for OSGeo Journal, I've just posted a  
>> proposed plan for a peer review process on the wiki here: http:// 
>> wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Talk:Journal
>>
> Your proposal looks quite thorough. I'm in a bit over my head here,  
> since I never had to go thru this process. So take my comments with  
> a several grains of salt. Still, some questions that came to mind:
> Should some minimum requirements for someone to be a reviewer be  
> mentioned?
> Is it necessary at this stage to add come clause to safeguard  
> against conflict of interests?
> As usual, it will be difficult to build and maintain a corps of  
> volunteer reviewers. Nevertheless, I gather from your outline of  
> the review process that at least two reviewers will be required for  
> each article that requests peer review?
>
> Regards,
> Micha
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> newsletter mailing list
> newsletter at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter