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

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

In the previous update [1], I told you that 
- our survey of editors regarding reviewing/reviewers found that
  - at least about one third of all reviews could be improved,
  - but the biggest perceived problem is getting good reviewers
    to agree to review at all (so giving something in return
    may help) and that 
  - it should likely be possible to convince editors of the
    usefulness of RQC.

What happened since?

I have now spoken with two editors and their corresponding
publishers. A publisher is a person (with a suitable PhD)
from the publishing company responsible to working with a
handful of journals on their continued development.

With these four people I will discuss how a review quality definition 
should look like to be suitable for the respective journal.
We have started this a bit and have already found out it
is far from straightforward; the tradeoffs involved are not
simple.

I have also visited an editorial board meeting for one of these
two journals, explained the RQC idea, and found attitudes
consistent with the survey results:
positive reactions from some of the editors (about 10 were present)
and skeptical ones from others. No strict opposition.


And finally, as usual:
Please tell me if you know anybody else who may like to be
on this mailing list [2].

  Lutz

[1] https://lists.fu-berlin.de/pipermail/rqc-interest/2015/msg00000.html
[2] https://lists.fu-berlin.de/listinfo/rqc-interest
    (you can subscribe here)