My Refereeing Policy - Revision history

Drorbn at 23:20, 3 September 2009

2009-09-03T23:20:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 3 September 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I will be happy to referee this paper by ???, either on or very near		I will be happy to referee this paper by ???, either on or very near
	???, ~~200~~?, as in my refereeing policy which is attached below.		???, 201?, as in my refereeing policy which is attached below.
	Please let me know if you are interested in my report on that date.		Please let me know if you are interested in my report on that date.

Drorbn at 15:00, 31 January 2008

2008-01-31T15:00:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 31 January 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:

	<pre>		<pre>
	My Refereeing Policy (as of ~~August 21~~, ~~2004~~)		My Refereeing Policy (updated January 31, 2008)
	============================================		===============================================
	(please do not forward to the author(s))		(please do not forward to the author(s))

	In short: I referee up to 6 papers a year (much more than my own		In short: I referee up to 6 papers a year (much more than my own
Line 55:		Line 55:
	one day of reading I still miss the point, which may well be present		one day of reading I still miss the point, which may well be present
	and may be great.		and may be great.


			5. This document is publicly available on my web site and can easily be
			traced back to me. Please do not forward it to the author(s).

	This document is subject to change and revision by its author.		This document is subject to change and revision by its author.
	</pre>		</pre>

Drorbn at 14:52, 31 January 2008

2008-01-31T14:52:09Z

New page

Dear Prof. ???

I will be happy to referee this paper by ???, either on or very near
???, 200?, as in my refereeing policy which is attached below.
Please let me know if you are interested in my report on that date.

Sincerely,

Dror Bar-Natan.

<pre>
My Refereeing Policy (as of August 21, 2004)
============================================
(please do not forward to the author(s))

In short: I referee up to 6 papers a year (much more than my own
output), spending up to a full day (8 hours) on each one. At the end of
such a day I write what I can write - great, awful, in between or
"couldn't tell". If it's too hard (i.e., takes more than a day of work)
I don't do it.

In detail: After years of feeling inadequate and frustrated with
writing referee reports (I've always been slow and hardly ever felt
that I've done a complete job) in October 2003 I've decided to codify
my refereeing policy. My aims are twofold: To put bounds on the process
for my own sake, and to have a policy document (this one) I can forward
to editors to set expectations clear.

1. Upon receipt of a referee request I will either reject it outright
or assign a full day for reading the relevant article and writing a
report about it, at least two months after and preferably no more
than three months after the scheduled completion of all my previous
refereeing assignments.

2. I will then send the assigned date along with this policy document
to the editor; it is up to the editor to decide if the report, of
nature as described below and at the specified assigned date,
remains of interest for him/her.

3. Assuming the editor remains interested, I will referee the article
and send my report on the assigned date, or, if for some unexpected
reason I am unable to spend a day on the article on the assigned
date, I will re-assign a day for that article at the nearest
convenient date and notify the editor of the new date.

4. My report will likely be as deep as it can be after one day of work,
but no more. I will attempt to identify and understand the main
point of the paper and confirm that some new idea is present that
makes the main point likely attainable. I will comment on the
overall value of the paper as I see it after a day of reading. But I
may not have the time to read details and a positive recommendation
may not mean that I am convinced that the paper is fully correct or
even that the main point is true. Likewise, while I will be acting
in good faith, a negative recommendation may sometimes mean that in
one day of reading I still miss the point, which may well be present
and may be great.

This document is subject to change and revision by its author.
</pre>