[RQC-interest] Review Quality Collector (RQC) status update April 2015

["Lutz Prechelt" <prechelt@inf.fu-berlin.de>]

In the previous update [1], I told you that 
- we were going to run a survey regarding the participating 
  editor's perceptions of the first Elsevier review quality 
  grading pilot experiment (and of their review quality 
  situation in general) and 
- we were looking for editors interested in trialing
  to develop a review quality _definition_, RQdef [2].

For the latter, one such editor has spoken up and I am
just starting the discussion with him.

For the former, the insights from the survey can be summarized 
as follows (the survey had 9 questions, Q1 to Q9, 
a mix of categorical, numerical and free text; the statistical base
is small (53 respondents), but wide):
- Q5+Q9: at least about one third of all reviews could be improved
- Q6: editors know who the good reviewers will be, but getting
  them to agree is hard. We should market RQC by "reviewing is a very
  important and valuable part of your work -- and now visible too".
- Q6: time delays created by non-refusing-but-should reviewers
  are a big problem; the RQ timeliness dimension should cover that.
- Q3: most editors do not think about RQ criteria explicitly.
- Q4: But they could. They only need some coaching.

My personal conclusion is: RQC will not only provide benefit to
reviewers and to research institutions, it will also be possible to
convince many (if not all) editors that it is also beneficial for them.


And finally, as usual:
Please tell me if you know anybody else who may like to be
on this mailing list [3].

  Lutz

[1] https://lists.fu-berlin.de/pipermail/rqc-interest/2014/msg00005.html
[2]
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/w/SE/ReviewQualityCollectorHome#Steps_44_Element
s_44_and_Effects_of_the_RQC_Procedure
[3] https://lists.fu-berlin.de/listinfo/rqc-interest  (you can subscribe
here)