Academic Referees



The author and the editor

I send the paper in
They say it is too thin.
When I've corrected that
They say it is too fat.

The next word that I hear
"It isn't really clear."
But after I explain
They look at it again.

At last they write to say
There's been so much delay
That with regret they find
(And hope I will not mind) --
Admittedly, it's sad --
But someone else just published everything I had!

Ralph Boas in "Lion-hunting & other mathematical pursuits"


Page created by Joao Ricardo Faria



 

Nasty Referees


             There is no better system than the refereeing system. This page aims at improving academic journals by identifying disrespectful behavior in refereeing process. By discerning what is wrong in it we can enhance and develop the system. It is a step in the direction of intellectual honesty, independence of spirit and freedom of expression in academia.



Nasty referees are the main barrier to entry in the academic market. They keep the market of ideas monopolized by  few clubs whose members  think they can avoid competition.











This page is dedicated to all serious researchers that have had problems with referees.

You are invited to share your experiences with journals [good or bad experiences]. This will allow us to distinguish constructive and useful advices from useless, aggressive and destructive ones. The desired outcome of this page is to provide information for prospective authors which journals are the best in terms of response time, referees and editors.  

Science evolves through freedom of expression and criticism. The only way to evolve is through constructive criticism. However, these simple rules are constantly violated by nasty referees who deal with our papers without the respect they deserve. 

By definition, a nasty referee report is a report in which there is no substance in the criticism. It is characterized by superficial considerations aiming at humiliating the author.

We scholars have to realize that obnoxious referees are in fact treating us with contempt. An author spends too many hours working with dedication to produce an article. By submitting it to an academic journal he is making his effort public without having any direct pecuniary gain [on the contrary, there is a huge opportunity cost associated to it]. The time that authors invest in their work is wasted by long delays caused by lazy referees. The novelty of ideas is being depreciated as well. Moreover, the referees have an opportunity to steal these ideas while dealing with the papers. Above all, what an author deserves is RESPECT. In the end of the day, when we submit one paper and wait for a long time and receive as feedback  a poor, dishonest and nasty referee report, we should REACT to it.

This page is, therefore, our reaction to nasty referees. As one great economist reminded me, we have to bear in mind that there are substitutes for good journals, but there are no substitutes for good ideas.

Please send your experience with nasty referee reports and/or your opinion on bad behavior of scholars, editors and academic journals. Your contribution will remain anonymous in order to protect you. Click here to send your message. Of course, editors are invited to reply the attacks. If you want to relate a good experience and/or what you think is the correct way to treat an author, please do so. All comments and criticisms are welcome !



 

Some historical examples

Opinions about journals, editors and scholars'  behavior

Editors' answers 

Articles about academia

Researchers on the economics of academia

Journals for economists

Economic journals on the web

Links for economists

Questionaire on referee process (Dept. Economics, University of Kiel)















































































1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1