Big congratulations!

I wouldn't survive long with those wires hanging loose close to a water boiler. Almost like a booby trap. You must have above-average attention skills

@pmra-1991.bsky.social
Roskilde University
Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen
Seulki Lee
@elizabethlinos.bsky.social
@michael-siciliano.bsky.social
@gabilotta.bsky.social
@nathanfavero.com
@anadimand.bsky.social
Melissa Falkær Olsen
@sassmikkelsen.bsky.social
@olehelby.bsky.social
Aaron Deslatte

Likewise happy to discuss it now and ongoing 😊

Exactly my point in another comment. We've heard that some editors rightly and admirably fought such procedures. I will too (but OUP has never ever approached us with anything like this)

Yes, it's an absolutely terrible idea for the reason you mention and a handful of others I discuss in response to another comment here

Overall, at first glance, it sounds great - saving author and reviewer time. But it could be very harmful to authors and our field.

7) (forgot numbering in previous post) It may change the incentives for making a shot at a top journal - a rejection will be harmful for the chances at other journals, potentially lowering the incentives for aiming high and rewarding playing safe - not good for scientific breakthroughs

The logistics is likely to work so that journals using a specific system can do this (e.g., ScholarOne). This is likely to reduce competition and monopolize the editorial systems our journals use

5) some publishers (we've heard that Wiley does this) try to keep papers within their portfolio. So we have profit motives for not getting the right match between papers and journals, potentially harmful to authors and the field

4) We see that reviewers rightly mention JPART's aims and scope when reviewing. A paper rejected at JPART should not be evaluated at the same criteria at PAR but on PAR's aims and scope. Transferring reviews will - at least to some extent - evaluate papers on wrong criteria

The standards - whatever they are - the highest ranked journals have will homogenize the field because authors try from the top and reviewers evaluate papers based on their standards. It's likely to reduce space for different traditions, methods, theories

2) it's a pretty important principle that papers get equal treatment. But which editor at journal no 3 or 5 on the list will give an R&R knowing the paper was rejected at no 1 or 2? APSR didn't like it but we at AJPS will take it - don't think that's likely

Here are some concerns - I have 5 or 6.
1) how a paper fares through the journal system is likely to become highly path dependent on the first reviewers it draw. Get a bad draw and that draw will follow the paper through the chain

Oh there are so many issues in this - happy to diacuss each of them

Excited to have you on board!

Thank you, Martin, for your incredible service, and welcome to Elizabeth and Aaron as they join the team! 💫"

@pmra-1991.bsky.social
@olehelby.bsky.social
@sassmikkelsen.bsky.social

Goddammit 🙃