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:
>>>> While I sympathize with your desire for quick feedback on submitted
>>articles, does (would) not multiple simultaneous submission result in
>>greater editorial/reviewer load, and thus increase the eventual lag?
>>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 manuscripts
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
colemanr at garnet.berkeley.edu