Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch
Rivkin: You may be right about the "reports," actually, but I am fairly sure "letters" don't get peer review. The peer input comes from the sometimes numerous and heated reply letters from others in the field. The editorial hurdle is still huge, however. If the editors don't think it is "good" enough or on a hot enough topic, or actually if they think it is too avante-garde, a submission dies an early death. Its like the fashion industry - the editors determine a priori what their audience wants.  Anyway, I just meant is to be an example of how there can be a teired approach to the publication process. There are, in fact, entire journals that are "pay to publish," where the paper receives virtually no peer review aside from whatever the editors feel needs to be changed.
|
To be honest I don't know what their standard practise is, I can only state that my "letters" submissions have gone through some limited review. Concerning publication charges - most of the journals have them, although they are somewhat semi-voluntary novadays. The review process is still pretty much the same, whether you pay it or not.
P.S. On the other hand I am not really sure I submitted a letter. I remember I wanted to, but may be I just submitted a report...
Now, to "Revised Stone" and "collecting information in the forum" - what we can do is commision series of review articles (i.e. articles that are by definition focus on covering discussion already that already occured in the community) on the subjects covered in the forum, and then, if the number of review articles will be significant we can stich them together.
But in my opinion, it is better to start with review articles and in this case we will need a place to publish them.