What's on
« 
February 2012
 »
SMTWTFS
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829 

To read or not to read? That is the question of our consultation.

publication date: May 3, 2010
Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.
Previous | Next
 

Read papers have a long tradition of forming one of the most important and prestigious aspects of the Society’s activities; such papers are read and discussed at Ordinary Meetings (OMs) of the Society. In recent years, some concerns have been raised about the procedures for handling such papers. How best to address these concerns, and to stimulate more read papers and on a wider range of topics, is under active consideration. Views are now sought from the membership to inform these deliberations.

Specific issues that you might address in your response include the following.

  • How the current procedures for read papers work in practice.
  • How the number of OMs could be increased without compromising their prestige.
  • How attendance at OMs and participation in the discussions could be promoted.
  • How the number, range and accessibility of read papers can be increased.
  • How procedures for read papers should be amended.

Comments should be sent to Martin Owen at the Society, it would be helpful if these could be received by around the end of June 2010. (email: journal@rss.org.uk).

At present, procedures for read papers differ according to whether they are submitted for possible publication in Series B (handled by the Research Section Committee) or for Series A and C (handled by the Read Papers Consulting Editor). One suggestion is that all papers should be handled in the same way irrespective of the journal series, in two stages.

In the first stage, the paper would be considered for publication in the series in exactly the same way as for non-read papers. If the paper is accepted for publication, suitability for reading would be determined by appropriate sections or study groups in a second stage coordinated by the Read Papers Consulting Editor. Appropriate sections or study group committees would be asked to decide whether the paper is of sufficient interest and merit to be sponsored by the section or study group at an OM. No further refereeing should take place at this stage, other than by members of the committee whose more general expertise will complement the refereeing already performed. Minor suggestions for revision intended to improve presentation, clarity and discussability could be made if necessary.

  • Do you see any advantages or disadvantages in this suggestion?
  • Would introduction of a procedure on these lines for a trial period be worthwhile?

Related Articles:

3 Comments Posted Leave a comment

100454
I feel somewhat ambivalent about the current system.

From my admittedly biased perspective as an academic statistician I recognise the very high prestige that attaches to Research Section read papers and the esteem in which they are held world-wide. This could be taken as a reason for not changing the system for dealing with these papers - but note that Resarch Section read papers are not always published in Series B.

From my equally but differently biased perspective as someone whose career has moved progressively towards applied research, the separate treatment of Research Section read papers, including the reservation of several slots each year for them, looks increasingly anomalous.

I have doubts about requiring papers to be accepted for publication before being considered for reading. One is that the review process for regular papers seems, if my experiences as an author are typical, to be slower on average than for read papers (but I guess Martin Owen can provide statistics on this). Another is that it is not always obvious in which series a read paper should be published. A third, and traditonally the most important, is that read papers tend to be different in style from regular papers - often much longer and reviewed at least partly on the basis of their discussability.

I would not favour an increase in the annual number of read paper slots. Their continued high standing is important in preserving the international reputation of the Society's journals, and through them of the Society itself. Increasing the number would also be likely to reduce attendance at the meetings themselves, which would be a shame.

One positive suggestion would be to give each Section at least one read paper slot per year and expect section committees actively to encourage submissions for their slot(s). This should not inhibit trading of slots between sections by mutual agreement whe one section has too many and another too few suitable papers. This should make the overall read paper programme more representative of the society's wide-ranging portfolio, and perhaps also increase its international standing.
100454
Whoops! Didn't mean to be anonymous.

Peter Diggle (School of Health and medicine, Lancaster University)
100454
Whoops! Didn't mean to be anonymous.

Peter Diggle (School of Health and medicine, Lancaster University)
 

Add a comment:

Sign in to comment on this entry. (Required)



Share |