... because nothing is more pleasant than revising multiple manuscripts with different requirements at the same time?
It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
71–80 of 126 posts
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#72Computer Science's conventions solve these problems (although CS certainly has other problems): * papers are generally posted to arxiv.org immediately on being finished, so everyone can access them * conferences have fixed deadlines and relatively short, fixed/enforced review cycles
Let's distinguish between papers and preprints, please. arXiv has contributed to a blurring of the distinction. The arXiv preprints are useful but should always be taken with a grain of salt. There is nearly no filtering done on things uploaded to arXiv. Everyone accessing someone's uncritically reviewed work is a bittersweet gift.
It’s how science worked for 3 centuries before the current review system was instituted just a generation ago.
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#73[dead]
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#74He mentions that there is a conflict of interest with recommending peer reviewers. While I agree this can be abused, I've often run into cargo cult science in AI when publishing something that is valid, novel, and in my opinion advances the field, because it is not aligned with how past work defined the problem when submitting to conferences where I cannot recommend more senior scientists as reviewers. Recommending p…
I'm not sure that the bias is only due to inexperienced reviewers. For example, even at a specialized venue like CoLLAs (I also work in CL), where you could send more esoteric research, you still see most people doing the usual rehearsal+class-incremental stuff. Most experienced researchers are also quite happy with the current state of the field. They may agree with your view, but their actual research and vision is much more aligned with the "popular" CL research.
In general, the whole deep learning field tends to oversimplify practical problems and experimental design in favor of overcomplicating methods. This happens at all the levels.
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's distinguish between papers and preprints, please. arXiv has contributed to a blurring of the distinction. The arXiv preprints are useful but should always be taken with a grain of salt. There is nearly no filtering done on things uploaded to arXiv. Everyone accessing someone's uncritically reviewed work is a bittersweet gift.
> Everyone accessing someone's uncritically reviewed work is a bittersweet gift. Review work is not always done by senior researcher (e.g., professors). Senior researchers often hand this down to PhDs. Having 3 to 4 reviews by nice junior reviewers doesn't sound very critical.
Just to be clear: you'd expect PhD students to be trained in reviewing by their supervisors.
So PhD students writing the initial review is not weird - it is an expected part of their training. As is the supervisor going over the review and providing constructive feedback. As is the review being submitted under the supervisor's responsibility, with credits (mention in proceedings) to the student for acting as a subreviewer.
Yes, there are ways to abuse this system and yes, abuses do occur. Any system for gaining job prestige or workload reduction is a target for gaming. This doesn't mean the system should be thrashed, but it does warrant additions to curb excesses.
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#76He mentions that there is a conflict of interest with recommending peer reviewers. While I agree this can be abused, I've often run into cargo cult science in AI when publishing something that is valid, novel, and in my opinion advances the field, because it is not aligned with how past work defined the problem when submitting to conferences where I cannot recommend more senior scientists as reviewers. Recommending p…
I'm not sure that the bias is only due to inexperienced reviewers. For example, even at a specialized venue like CoLLAs (I also work in CL), where you could send more esoteric research, you still see most people doing the usual rehearsal+class-incremental stuff. Most experienced researchers are also quite happy with the current state of the field. They may agree with your view, but their actual research and vision is…
What's CL?
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#77The author suggests that "The fear that multiple submissions would overwhelm the peer-review system lacks empirical evidence". Maybe it won't "overwhelm" it, but it will certainly add to the reviewing workload. Simply stated, if authors submit to N journals and each asks for 2 reviewers, that's 2N units of work (assuming they can get the reviewers), compared to 2 units of work. But it may be worse than that, actually…
Why can't the journals share reviewers? Once the reviews are in, the editors decide if they want the paper in their journal, and if more than one does, the authors get to pick. Obviously it would be a bit more complicated with revisions, etc. but it would be an improvement over the current system.
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#78It is time to burn traditional academic publishing to the ground and rebuild it from the ground up, or else let's rebel against the government, give Alexandra Elbakyan citizenship and put her in charge of the Department of Energy to make all computer science research open domain for all the world to see. Requesting $48 for to read a paper funded by your taxes before you even know it is useful to your work will result…
The way forward is for government research-funding bodies (ideally all of them) to insist that funded works only be published under open access. This appears to already be well underway in the UK. [0][1]
The article isn't about open access though, so this isn't strictly on topic.
[0] https://www.ukri.org/manage-your-award/publishing-your-resea...
[1] https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/who-we-are/our-policies-and-...
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#79It is time to burn traditional academic publishing to the ground and rebuild it from the ground up, or else let's rebel against the government, give Alexandra Elbakyan citizenship and put her in charge of the Department of Energy to make all computer science research open domain for all the world to see. Requesting $48 for to read a paper funded by your taxes before you even know it is useful to your work will result…
Let's remember Aaron Swartz died fighting for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
He helped Assange who is now facing the same fate. And "the west" loves to point fingers that countries for their flawed justices systems. Hypocrisy to the max.
Re: It’s time to allow researchers to submit manuscripts to multiple journals
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused. Do you accept published papers as gospel? They should be taken with a grain of salt too.
Depends on the field certainly. A paper in the Annals of Mathematics is definitely a lot more rock solid than whatever goes on the arXiv, or reviewed papers in certain fields that are particular magnets for junk science.
Funny you should mention Annals. A journal famous for publishing two papers in three years by the same author, one proving some theorem, and the other disproving the theorem. Sure, tons of other journals have done so, but Annals is definitely the highest profile one. Maybe take a look at https://mathoverflow.net/questions/282742/endless-controvers... or https://mathoverflow.net/questions/35468/widely-accepted-mat... It's also a nice way to pad your CV if you manage to get the wrong theorem published - you get two Annals papers for the price of one.
It is of course true that published papers have been vetted. But very often, it simply means that 1. an editor glanced at it, 2. (optional) a peer provided a positive quick opinion on the paper, without checking the correctness, 3. one or two independent referees presumably read the paper and produced a report on it. It's not nothing, but it doesn't mean you should accept blindly as truth everything published.
For context, I'm an associate professor of mathematics at a large research university.