The problem I have with this is: do very low quality papers deserve a high quality, constructive review?
RT @mbeisen@twitter.com
@AMartinezArias@twitter.com @cshperspectives@twitter.com @eLife@twitter.com that's the idea - we are intentionally redefining what eLife means - it means high-quality, constructive REVIEWS - not high-quality papers
Is the question really a normative one regarding "deserving" something? Or is it a question of our integrity in providing a public service?
I think *all* papers can benefit from a high quality review. I'm sure higher quality, constructive feedback is something everyone would prefer to receive, but I doubt everyone is willing to provide (e.g. "reviewer 2"). Thus, ignoring the obvious time constraints on faculty, wouldn't it be better to provide such better reviews regardless of my subjective quality judgement? Granted, peer review is all about making such judgements, and I may think a given manuscript is trash. However, I can at least give the authors the courtesy of explaining clearly where/why it's trash, and how it could be improved upon.
I think ELife's spin on this is naive and ill-considered, but I also think the peer review process could use some improvement.
Thoughts?
