Abstract
In recent Forum articles (Eos, October 23, 1984, p. 770), P.J. Baum and A.J. Dessler have commented on the peer review system as implemented in the Space Physics section of JGR. The issues they raise are important, and as current editor I welcome the opportunity to express my views on them.As is evident from the review form presently used in JGR‐Space Physics and shown in Figure 1, I share the concern expressed by Baum and Dessler that the review process should permit significant new and unorthodox ideas or results to be published. Apparently, Baum feels that the form is a negative influence in this respect. Eos readers may judge for themselves, but I must confess to surprise at this reaction, since the objective of maintaining the journal as an open forum for diverse scientific viewpoints is spelled out very clearly and since referees are asked to present constructive criticism whenever possible. In my experience, most referees have no difficulty relating the information on the back side of the form to the summary evaluation on the front side, and they are quite willing to recommend acceptance of high‐quality papers containing controversial but well argued views. Thus I believe the form serves its purposes well. Nevertheless, I would welcome concrete suggestions for improvement of it.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
