ProfLikeSubstance is hosting an honest to goodness real life NSF Program Officer (rotating) over at his blog. It's going to be a three part series. First two posts are already up. NSF has always seemed to be a bit reluctant to embrace the whole blog/social networking thing, so this is a BIG DEAL!!!!!!!!
Go get the scoop!
Many kudos to ProfLike for making this happen and to Michelle Elekonich for revealing the inner workings of the NSF!
Someone on the Twitts today asked if it was okay to send signed manuscript reviews directly to the authors. After submitting them to the journal of course. The rationale was to speed up the process by giving the authors a headstart on the revisions.
Much to my surprise he received a bunch of "yes, I've done that before" replies.
IMHO this is a bad idea.
By doing this, a reviewer is circumventing the editor (and the process set up by the publisher). The editor has been entrusted with the job of making a decision on the fate of said manuscript. It's not the job of a manuscript reviewer to decide whether or not a paper should be published. Or even what revisions should be required. Reviewers make recommendations. Editors make the decisions. Sure, most often the editor will agree with the reviewers as far as what should be revised. But not always.
So what do you think?