d.orsini at elsevier.nl
Mon Sep 9 13:48:29 EST 1996
Daniela Orsini wrote:
> From: RABBIT::RABBIT::MRGATE::"MRX_PP::2=400net::3=surf::5=elsevier::4=pigeon::*RFC-822\Johan.Van-Weyenbergh(a)curie.fr::1=nl" 9-SEP-1996 11:10
> To: SPIDER::DT04
> Subj: Re: ******PEER REVIEW**************
> From: NAME: Johan Van Weyenbergh
> FUNC: elsevier <1=nl@*RFC-822\Johan.Van-Weyenbergh(a)curie.fr at 4=pigeon at 5=elsevier at 3=surf at 2=400net at MRX_PP@RABBIT at ESP>
> To: NAME: Daniela Orsini
> FUNC: elsevier
> INITLS: d <DT04 at SPIDER@MRGATE>
> X-Sender: vawe at mailhost.curie.fr
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> At 09:31 09/09/1996 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >How do you feel about double-blinded peer review (i.e. the reviewer
> >does NOT know the author's identity and vice versa)? Do you
> >think it would be difficult to avoid phrases like: "we previously
> >describes ()..."
> >Let me know!
> Great idea ! Might increase objectivity...
> In return, what do you think of the open peer review for publishing on
> Internet ? I feel tempted to submit something, I guess it is a bit too soon
> to judge, but it's nicer to be one of the first than one of the last, isn't it ?
I think open peer review could be worthwhile as long as the comments
you get are of good quality, so an editor should probably filter out
any crap that comes in. What do you think? Apart from the medium
(paper or electronic) would you rather have double-blinded peer-review
or open peer review?
More information about the Immuno