Editor for this issue: Sarah Murray <sarah
linguistlist.org>
Re: Ronald Sheen's <rsheenMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueausharjah.edu> posting on a New Website to Discuss Blind Peer Review (LINGUIST 15.118) I think Ronald Sheen is right in suggesting that some kind of independent evaluation of the performance and fairness of scientific journals would be welcome. Scientometrics routinely measures the impact of journals, but it would be good to also have an independent measure of the quality of the editorial and reviewing process. Especially in view of the soaring journal prices, are we really getting the quality that Publishers say only they can guarantee? It may be hopeless to try to systematically evaluate the fairness of reviewers' argumentation (apparently Sheen's main goal), and one can always point to the availability of competing journals if a particular approach does not seem to find favor in a particular journal. However, another VERY important factor is the speed of evaluation. It would be good to know in general which journals are the fastest and which are the slowest in evaluating submissions. I'm sure that the slowest journals would soon have a shortage of submissions, and they would try to become faster. Competition in this area would be very healthy. I find it very worrying that some of the most prestigious journals in linguistics reportedly take between 6 and 12 months to get reports from two or three reviewers, even though these reviewers are asked to send their reviews within eight weeks. I can't believe that it should be impossible to reduce these times considerably, especially for the more prestigious journals (because reviewers presumably make reports for these journals higher priority). Does anybody know if other fields (especially those where journals cost a lot more than in linguistics) have independent journal evaluation procedures of the kind I'm envisaging? Any other ideas? -Martin Haspelmath