Hybrid reviewing systems

Gabriel Power emails me:

I have not seen anyone discuss this possibility of a hybrid open/classic referee process: Editors approve set of X reviewers (say 300). Then, every submitted paper can be reviewed by any approved reviewer. Editor then considers all reviews. If no review, then editor assigns or desk rejects. Issues: Incentives? Selection bias? Matching author quality with reviewer quality? Conflicts of interest? Pros and cons? I think it is intriguing. Sincerely yours — Gabriel Power

I would stress the goal is not to find the “best” reviewing system.  Rather we are looking to set different reviewing systems in competition with each other.


Comments for this post are closed