In article <2ga6bq$hl9 at agate.berkeley.edu>, colemanr at garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>In article <93355.134537FORSDYKE at qucdn.queensu.ca>,
> <FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
>>In article <1993Dec20.204932.27287 at midway.uchicago.edu>,
>>jm68 at quads.uchicago.edu>>(James R. Mensch Jr.) says:
>>> ....stuff deleted......
>>>I am assuming that others will choose as their "secondary..." journal your
>>>(or anyones) "primary" journal. The ultimate solution to the problem
>>>would seem to lie in improving the efficiency of the review process.
>>>Perhaps the review process could be more efficient, but I think the whole
>system could be vastly improved if people would take more care when
>submitting their papers. I am getting really tired of receiving manuscript
>to review that are obviously not the authors best work: poor writing,
>sloppy organization, bad graphs. In short, the authors just didn't really
>think about what they were doing -- they just submitted and hoped the
>reviewers would fix the paper. This is the real problem in the system.
>I think that ideally a reviewer should only have to correct points of fact,
>and to argue logic and points of view and the reviewer shouldn't have to
>wade through a bunch of crap to do these jobs.
>-- Ron Coleman
How about journals charging $75.00 simply for submission of articles. This
fee would provide for payment of a stipend for reviewers ($25.00 each)
**if they can return manuscripts in the required time.** The fee may
discourage sloppy submissions and provide a stipend for responsive
reviewers who often get little or no recognition for their efforts.??!!
Just a thought. Regards, Peter
*********************************************************************
* Peter M. Muriana, Ph.D. Phone = (317)-494-8284 *
* Dept. of Food Science FAX = (317)-494-7953 *
* Purdue University E-mail = muriana at aclcb.purdue.edu *
* W. Lafayette, IN 47907 *
*********************************************************************
