« At the Dusk of Liberalism; Spinoza, the Unraveling of NATO, and Liberal Institutions | Main | On Seneca's Mortal Meditations, Impartial Spectators, and Public Crimes (and Janis Joplin) »

06/13/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jonathan Ichikawa

Huh. Without knowing the specifics of what you said in the report I can't know how to feel about this particular case. But I would certainly be willing to say that sometimes, when submitting to a new journal, it can be appropriate to ignore previous referees' reports. If I get an R&R I'll feel obliged to respond to the referee whether I agree with them or not, but if my paper is rejected and I'm submitting somewhere else, I'm perfectly willing to just ignore the previous reports if I don't find them valuable. Indeed, when I was in grad school, we were explicitly advised to do just that. (They called it the 'five envelope rule'—no-named back when papers were actually submitted to journals as physical objects.)

Graham White

It's an odd relationship, but it can work out well: I'm very grateful for changes that referees have suggested to several of my papers. So, of course, optimisation is another goal of the refereeing system, as well as gatekeeping. And (thinking of the blog past after this) it's a way of teaching authors not to be too attached to their own ideas: How Would Seneca Review This? might be a good question to ask.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad