I love science. I hate supposition, superstition, exaggeration and falsified data. Show me the research, show me the results, show me the conclusions – and then show me some qualified peer reviews of all that.
– Bill Vaughan
Every time you publish in a peer-reviewed journal, you mobilize anywhere from 3 to 5 persons who will work absolutely for free on your manuscript. Minimally, you will have two reviewers and an associate editor, all who will take the time to read and critics your work. On the top of that, the editor will also spend times on it. If needed, a third reviewer will also be requested.
Bottom line, for every paper you publish, you should be reviewing at least three manuscripts for the system to work correctly.
So here is my surprise when, as an associate editor for a journal in my field, someone very well known and publishing a lot, reply to my request that he/she never [bother to] review papers anymore. This behavior, to me, is borderline unethical, taking all the benefit of the system and never giving back…if you are a GOT fan, remember the walk in the city with the bells and the word SHAME repeated over and over…
What do you think?
