[Comment on “Implementing the peer review process in AGU Publications” The peer review process in JGR”Space Physics
Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
©1984. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 65, Issue 52, page 1242, 25 December 1984
How to Cite
1984), [Comment on “Implementing the peer review process in AGU Publications” The peer review process in JGR”Space Physics, Eos Trans. AGU, 65(52), 1242–1242, doi:10.1029/EO065i052p01242.(
- Issue published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Cited By
In recent Forum articles (Eos, October 23, 1984, p. 770), P.J. Baum and A.J. Dessler have commented on the peer review system as implemented in the Space Physics section of JGR. The issues they raise are important, and as current editor I welcome the opportunity to express my views on them.
As is evident from the review form presently used in JGR-Space Physics and shown in Figure 1, I share the concern expressed by Baum and Dessler that the review process should permit significant new and unorthodox ideas or results to be published. Apparently, Baum feels that the form is a negative influence in this respect. Eos readers may judge for themselves, but I must confess to surprise at this reaction, since the objective of maintaining the journal as an open forum for diverse scientific viewpoints is spelled out very clearly and since referees are asked to present constructive criticism whenever possible. In my experience, most referees have no difficulty relating the information on the back side of the form to the summary evaluation on the front side, and they are quite willing to recommend acceptance of high-quality papers containing controversial but well argued views. Thus I believe the form serves its purposes well. Nevertheless, I would welcome concrete suggestions for improvement of it.