Does Online Reviewing Encourage Poor Research?
To the Editor: I agree with Mark Bauerlein et al. that there is a proliferation of low-quality research that is being driven by the “publish or perish” imperative in career advancement and grants success (“We Must Stop the Avalanche of Low-Quality Research,” The Chronicle, June 13). As a clinical-medicine peer reviewer, I find that I am regularly inundated with review requests, including for print and Web journals and conference abstracts. Although I find Web-based manuscript submission and reviews convenient, I suspect that the efficient turnaround of peer reviews managed electronically (often with a deadline of up to two weeks for return of reviews) allows, even encourages, a low-quality manuscript to “do the rounds,” from expeditious rejections by prestigious journals to acceptance (ultimately) by a lesser journal. Several rounds of peer review are expended before the same oft-resubmitted manuscript finally emerges into the light of day in a peer-reviewed journal or as an oral confe
