...
【24h】

Joint Editorial

机译:联合社论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In 2002, the editors of the RFS, JF, and JFE simultaneously published an editorial that urged authors to make good use of the advice and input provided by referees.1 Recent informal communications have suggested to us that it is time to renew that advice. Many papers are submitted to our journals, and the scarcest resource we have as a profession is the supply of time donated by referees to read, consider, and comment on their colleagues' work. In general, the author does not know the identity of the referee, so referees can express honest opinions about the quality of the work without alienating the author. However, this system has the counterproductive consequence that authors can undervalue the services they receive. We are particularly troubled by two practices that we see too frequently.
机译:在2002年,RFS,JF和JFE的编辑同时发表了一篇社论,敦促作者充分利用裁判提供的建议和意见。1最近的非正式交流向我们建议是时候更新该建议了。许多论文都提交给我们的期刊,而我们作为职业所拥有的最稀缺的资源是裁判员捐赠的时间,以供他们阅读,考虑和评论其同事的工作。通常,作者不知道裁判的身份,因此裁判可以就工作质量发表诚实的看法,而不会疏远作者。但是,该系统产生适得其反的结果,即作者可能会低估他们所获得的服务。我们经常看到的两种做法给我们特别困扰。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The review of financial studies 》 |2013年第11期| 2685-2686| 共2页
  • 作者单位

    Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, and Journal of Finance;

    Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, and Journal of Finance;

    Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, and Journal of Finance;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号