If it aint broken dont fix it
E. M. EVLETH
Dynamique des Interactions Moleculaires
Universite Pierre et Marie Curie
4 Place Jussieu, Tour 22, Paris 75005
(1) 44 27 42 08
UDIM018 at FRORS31
I think the current journal referee system works better than any
other I can imagine and only minor modifications are necesssary.
If you look around this world you'll see things a lot worse.
Personally, even after nearly 20 years here in France, naturalized
and as culturally adapted as one can be I still can not see substituting
an anonymous evaluation with one from one can "get to". It can
and does happen here with regard to promotions and various grants.
The French call it "piston". However, in all cultures (we function
in a trans-cultural scientific environment) there will be
"clubs", networks of friends and buddies, people who know on another
and
other forms of tribalisms and those who have a meritorious approach
will wage an unending battle against the worse features of these
natural human interactions. A reviewer is always influenced by the
presence of a well known author (particularly a friend) from a well
known institution on a paper. A good reviewer knows he will be and
attempts to play fair, particularly with regard to an young person
having no recognizable place in the scientific pecking order. But
having put the "knief" into the back of a personal and close friend
more
than once is uncomfortable and it would have affected our personal
relationships if it were known that it was me who did it. I assume that
editors keep list of good referees and weed out bad referees.
But the current referee system is pretty much trans-cultural, one knows
the rules of the game, one knows one will run into a poor referee,
one knows one will have a paper unfairly refused at times. But I think
the current system does promote excellence. This current system is a
hard on third world research and authors and those who have problems
with english. Finally, it is a game.