tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post5794243634181639891..comments2024-03-26T19:10:00.791-04:00Comments on West Coast Stat Views (on Observational Epidemiology and more): Journal ReviewingJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-90211411124586492762010-05-31T13:19:54.221-04:002010-05-31T13:19:54.221-04:00One day I hope to get involved with a journal so I...One day I hope to get involved with a journal so I spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking about this issue. The problem with making journal review an expectation of submission is that reviewers can give back reviews. <br /><br />This is less obviously a good strategy in NIH study section where sloppy work can convince the people who evaluate your funding that you aren't that good . . .Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-9516448615571464472010-05-30T18:24:00.633-04:002010-05-30T18:24:00.633-04:00I've reviewed for journals I've never sent...I've reviewed for journals I've never sent anything to and I've reviewed for journals I would never normally read.<br /><br />Why can't journals do what the funding bodies are doing? If you send them stuff you have to tick a box confirming that you will also serve as a reviewer at least once or twice?<br /><br />It's particularly disheartening to see that behaviour reported by public health people who ought to know better than to free ride in a trust/common property system.Nathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100648595914456494noreply@blogger.com