MOVING TO FRONT FROM SATURDAY (NOV. 27) TO ENCOURAGE MORE FEEDBACK
Thom Brooks (Newcastle) writes:
I was hoping that you could help publicize some comments for feedback from your readers concerning referee guidelines. I am part of an APA committee looking into journal practices and sit on a subcommittee on guidelines for referees. We have three different areas where I would be keen to solicit comments from your readers:
A. Appropriate response times to an invitation and for an evaluation
My view is that potential referees should have at least two weeks to respond to invitations for reviews. This is because they should have an extra few days to assess whether they have the time to commit to providing a review. Once a referee accepts, I believe the maximum evaluation time should be 6-8 weeks and ideally one month. Colleagues should have time to review given their many existing commitments, but no more than two months. Otherwise, it is best to find someone else.
B. Guidelines for comments with regard to civility and the promotion of quality research.
Referees should be expected to treat authors with courtesy and even where authors have been uncharitable towards their targets. Reports should convince editors to follow their recommendations and uncivil reports may have the opposite effect.
C. Conflicts of interest
While it is necessary that reviewers inform editors where they may know the author's identity, I am not sure this need always be a problem or that another reviewer is needed in every instance.
Thoughts from readers?
