Timeline for Secret-Santa-like informal peer reviewing in a small community
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2023 at 23:01 | comment | added | a3nm | About "people are busy", which I agree is a big challenge on anything new in academia: my observation is that we spend copious time giving feedback to strangers via peer review, even though in my experience this is often less interesting to me as a reader, and leads to less interesting feedback, than if I were to spend the same attention on papers from colleagues and collaborators. So why are we currently so generous with our time for formal peer review, while we seem to think it is less important to read in details what the people close to us are doing? | |
| Nov 26, 2023 at 22:58 | comment | added | a3nm | Thanks for the answer. About "this already exists": I know of working groups and informal sharing of work in progress. But I have never seen people in this context (including me) who would commit to reading each other's work with the same reliability as most people (including me) do for peer review towards strangers. About COIs etc., the point is to give/receive feedback from collaborators, I don't see grave implications if a review turns out to be bad (or maybe insincerely positive). I think of it like "sharing papers and work in progress" but with more structure and with commitments. | |
| Nov 26, 2023 at 20:40 | history | answered | Buffy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |