[extropy-chat] JET: Peer-reviewed Journal?

[Hughes, James J.]

> Can you tell me a little more about the peer-review process of JET?  
> How is JET (Journal of Evolution and Technology) peer-reviewed, and by
whom?

We have a database of about 4000 people. In it we flag scholars,
professors and graduate students, and flag their competence/interest in
about 25 different areas (computer science, bioscience, space, etc.) We
have about 345 such people flagged.

When we receive a paper we pull up three people in that area of
competence who haven't been asked recently, and send them invitations to
review. Sometimes we need to send a second round of invitations. 

Our reviewer pool is rather small, given the volume of papers we
receive, and we are working on beefing it up. We are also creating an
automated set of web forms for the submission and tracking of
manuscripts (or rather Marcelo is). 

If any of you would like to volunteer to review manuscripts please
contact Marcelo at <mrinesi at fibertel.com.ar> and let him know your
spheres of competence.

The review form that we ask reviewers to complete is appended at the
bottom of this message. It is a standard form for such reviews.

> Are there external peers, or are they our own staff listed on 
> the website?  

Most of the reviewers are drawn from people we flag as at least
sympathetic with transhumanism. But they aren't internal in the sense of
only being the editorial board of JET.
 
> who peer-reviewed Robin Hanson's paper on economic growth? 

Can't really say. It was published before I assumed editorship. Perhaps
Nick Bostrom has a record and can tell you their professional
qualifications.
 
> Do we have 
> experts in the fields of AI, genetics, robotics, cloning, 
> neurology, etc. on call, or do we wing it with the staff that we have?

We do have such experts, but sometimes they are tapped out or too busy
by the time we ask them. So sometimes papers are reviewed by people in
other domains of expertise. Not ideal, but then review by people with
multiple spheres of competence is often helpful given the
multidisciplinary nature of the journal.

> Do we really have the scientific rigor that, say the New 
> England Journal of Medicine has, in reviewing, verifying and 
> validating such papers?  Do we really have a staff of fact 
> checkers, or do we do that? 

No, but we are working toward that. And frankly, studies of the
scientific errors that pass through the review process in the more
formal scientific journals show there is room for improvement there
also.
 
------------------------

Dear [reviewer],

Thank you for agreeing to peer review this manuscript.  Attached you
will find the anonymized manuscript in Word format. Our Peer Reviewer
form is below in this message.  It is most helpful if you can email your
comments to us by responding to this message and including your comments
below.  

Please feel free to email or phone me if you have any questions.  Many
thanks for your efforts!

Best regards,

James Hughes Ph.D.
Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology
http://jetpress.org
Williams 229B, Trinity College
300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106
(office) 860-297-2376
director at ieet.org

------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT FOR 

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY
http://jetpress.org
INSTITUTE FOR ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY


MANUSCRIPT TITLE: [title]

PEER REVIEWER: [name]

DATE DUE: [date]

THIS ESSAY...

___ is interesting/thought provoking
___ adds to the existing literature
___ demonstrates a development of thought on the subject
___ is clear to the non-specialist, intelligent reader
___ requires statistical refereeing 


SUMMARY REVIEWER RECOMMENDATION: 

___ Acceptable as is
___ Accept with minor revisions
___ Possibly acceptable with revision and resubmission
___ Definitely unacceptable, resubmission not recommended


FOR PUBLISHABLE PAPERS: please check if any of the following are
appropriate:

___ The paper is of exceptional quality
___ The paper is topical and/or should be published urgently
___ It might be appropriate to invite a response or a commentary


REMARKS FOR EDITORS:









REVIEWER COMMENTS FOR AUTHOR: