Timeline for Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2013 at 1:32 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | @F'x I am not sure in this case, but I think in general it is reasonable for the ethicality of some actions to depend on the visibility of the journal. There is the old saying: "if you can put in 20 minutes of work to save readers 1 minute of time then you should do if you expect 20 or more readers", unfortunately different venues still result in different number of readers (even if you submit identical papers), so different amounts of work can be expected. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 13:08 | history | edited | F'x | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2013 at 14:35 | comment | added | Ben Webster | Another possibility is that someone they did list (or someone better known) kept suggesting you when they got requests. I don't know, but have always suspected a lot of my referee traffic comes from one senior person in my field who suggests my name when he is asked. | |
| Jan 15, 2013 at 15:26 | comment | added | silvado | I wouldn't say that the publication venue has anything to do with ethicality, but rather quality. | |
| Jan 15, 2013 at 15:16 | comment | added | F'x | @silvado I think it funny that the ethicality of an action would be dependent on the visibility of the journal concerned | |
| Jan 15, 2013 at 14:25 | comment | added | silvado | The only situation where this is halfway reasonable from the authors' side is when the main author left the project, and the others didn't have the time to make revisions. But then it deserves being published in an obscure journal only... | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 19:35 | history | answered | F'x | CC BY-SA 3.0 |