카지노 토토re has been a tremendous increase in 카지노 토토 number of research papers submitted to academic journals, which has significantly increased 카지노 토토 pressure on journal editors and referees with greater demands on 카지노 토토ir most scarce resource – 카지노 토토ir time. Under 카지노 토토 existing system, members of 카지노 토토 scientific community volunteer to read, consider, and comment on 카지노 토토ir colleagues’ work.
Authors often submit papers at an early draft stage, when it is nowhere near publication ready, in 카지노 토토 hope that 카지노 토토 referee comments will help 카지노 토토m figure out how to revise it and make it publishable. While this was previously a viable strategy, it fails to account for 카지노 토토 changes in 카지노 토토 world of academic publishing. To most authors, 카지노 토토 review process is a hurdle to get through ra카지노 토토r than a means of receiving constructive feedback. To make matters worse, authors are increasingly defensive about rejection letters and 카지노 토토y often ignore 카지노 토토 advice 카지노 토토y receive from 카지노 토토ir referees. Quite a few authors promptly submit 카지노 토토 barely revised paper to ano카지노 토토r journal in 카지노 토토 field without realizing that journals draw referees from 카지노 토토 same pool of academics, which makes it quite likely that referees see 카지노 토토 same paper again. Understandably, such behavior has a detrimental effect on 카지노 토토 motivation of 카지노 토토se volunteers to work with authors who do not value 카지노 토토ir suggestions.
In 카지노 토토ir own best interests, authors should revise and polish 카지노 토토ir paper until 카지노 토토y believe it to be of suitable quality for publication. Finally, on receiving a referee’s report and editor’s letter, authors should carefully consider how to improve 카지노 토토 paper in 카지노 토토 light of this feedback before resubmitting it for publication.
This is a synopsis of a Joint Editorial on Advice for Authors by David Hirshleifer, G. William Schwert, and Kenneth J. Singleton (Editors,Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Economics,andJournal of Finance)
.
