Open chris-huggins opened 5 years ago
Particularly interesting:
As an editor, it is sometimes frustrating to put a lot of work into really boiling things down to the essential revisions, and then have the authors still come back and try to argue for why they shouldn't need to do things or shouldn't do components of what was identified as an essential revision, as they would for a subset of the general mix of reviewer comments that they would get from a typical journal. For certain, sometimes we make mistakes or there are alternate ways that something can be addressed, but more often it just feels like an ingrained approach, and/or we aren't being clear enough with our wording that really, we've done them a huge favor by identifying these 3-4 things that they need to change, and that we really mean that these are ESSENTIAL.
Spring 2019 BRE survey results - interesting insights into the BREs experience of finding and inviting reviewers, handling consultation, their workloads etc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/158rvCO8OOO_bceWLeiLFYryEoFFJIBUTcHCFxKZ25hs/edit#
summary slides from staff meeting - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QSzaJeJKwI8mny72621A70mFvY6y5o7y7VNw9e_dGLM/edit#slide=id.g5ca9fdb8f1_0_84