Published: Jan. 4, 2021, 7 a.m.
Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollars, why negative comments on peer reviews need to be normalised, plus much more.
\n\n
Some more details:
\n\n
\n- The pros and cons of collaborative peer review (in which all peer reviewers discuss the paper after all individual peer reviews have been submitted
\n- How technology can constrain journal operations
\n- The strange engineered delay in paper reviews (I doesn't take 2-3 weeks to review a paper)
\n- Michael's proposal for a system in which people can nominate they have time in the near future to review a paper and then papers can be sent to them so they're rapidly reviewed
\n- Journal submission interfaces
\n- Michael's take on paying peer reviewers
\n- Who owns peer reviews?
\n- Would negative (anonomous or not) comments on an open peer review report penalise authors in the future?
\n- Every paper gets negative peer-review comments, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad paper
\n- Michael proposes an explicit "speculation" section for papers, where authors get free reign to basically say whatever they want
\n
\n\n
Other links
\n\n
\n\n
Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)
\n\n
\n\n
Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
\n\n
\n- $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
\n
\n\n- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month \n\n
Episode citation
Special Guest: Michael Eisen.
Sponsored By:
Support Everything Hertz