Discussion Solved

Experiences with PMRF.is the stipend keeping pace with inflation? (88)

Back to Forum
Active 310 pts 0 followers
St Aloysius (Deemed to be University) · Posted
Curriculum & Pedagogy Robotics & Automation Sociology & Anthropology

I have been on both sides.as a reviewer for IEEE and ACM journals, and as an author who has received peer review. The experience has made me wonder whether the current closed peer review model is serving science well.

As a reviewer: I put significant effort into reviews (usually 1500–2500 words). But I occasionally see reviews from other reviewers that are 3 sentences and completely uninformative.

As an author: I have received reviews that clearly misunderstood the paper's contribution. I have also received brilliant reviews that genuinely improved the paper.

Discussion question: What changes to peer review would actually improve quality? Open peer review? Paid reviewing? Double-blind everywhere?

Interested to hear from people across different fields and career stages.

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

6 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Varsha Pillai Growing 60 pts · Accepted answer

I'd push back slightly on the idea that industry collaboration is universally beneficial for academic research. The incentive misalignment is real.

Industry partners want deliverables on a schedule. Academic research is often exploratory and unpredictable. When the two clash, it is usually the researcher who has to compromise.either by rushing results, constraining publication, or steering away from results that are inconvenient for the sponsor.

This doesn't mean industry collaboration is bad. But the terms matter enormously. IP rights, publication rights, and the ability to pursue negative results should be negotiated upfront and protected in writing.

0
Pooja Nambiar Growing 115 pts · Accepted answer

Check whether your institution has a Springer/Elsevier waiver agreement.many NITs and IITs do.

0
Replying to Pooja Nambiar
Priya Nair · Accepted answer

This is a known issue with XLM-R on code-mixed data. The MuRIL preprint has a section specifically comparing these.

0
Replying to Pooja Nambiar
Ekta Choudhary Starting 45 pts · Accepted answer

This is a known issue with XLM-R on code-mixed data. The MuRIL preprint has a section specifically comparing these.

0
Replying to Pooja Nambiar
Manish Tiwari Starting 10 pts · Accepted answer

If you are not already using a reading group format with your students, I would strongly recommend it. Forces everyone to articulate what they read.

0
Varsha Pillai Growing 60 pts · Accepted answer

The IEEE TPAMI turnaround in my case was 7 months for the first review. Plan accordingly.