| 1 | Mar 17, 2011 1:09 PM | A reviewer pool with specialties of the reviewers. |
| 2 | Mar 16, 2011 12:46 PM | A central data base of able potential 'quality controlled' referees would be of use. |
| 3 | Mar 16, 2011 3:49 AM | Some internal database where the co-editors can share experiences with the referees |
| 4 | Mar 15, 2011 11:26 AM | A central record of reviewers - principal purpose being to see if a potential reviewer is already "used" frequently by another co-editor, to avoid multiple independent invitations. |
| 5 | Mar 15, 2011 11:15 AM | not aware of such tools |
| 6 | Mar 15, 2011 8:52 AM | Reviewer pool |
| 7 | Mar 15, 2011 5:31 AM | a reviewer pool |
| 8 | Mar 15, 2011 4:43 AM | I only use the few people whom I know, with some either not obliging, or becoming unavailable. |
| 9 | Mar 15, 2011 1:41 AM | the reviewer lists may be helpful, but it may cause excessive duty on a few listed reviewers. |
| 10 | Mar 14, 2011 11:20 PM | a reviewer pool |
| 11 | Mar 14, 2011 11:20 PM | Maybe a reviewer pool... |
| 12 | Mar 14, 2011 8:01 PM | Reviewer pool |
| 13 | Mar 14, 2011 6:58 PM | perhaps a list of referee volunteers? |
| 14 | Mar 14, 2011 6:56 PM | A reviewer pool would be helpful. |
| 15 | Mar 14, 2011 5:51 PM | I would find useful to have the database of referees/subjects. What I would really appreciate is the service regarding the chemical names. I rely on
a colleague of mine who is an organic chemist and in more complicated cases on Dr. Kahovec who is
the member of IUPAC commission on chemical names. I must admit that usually I do not ask the referees (except the chemical names) for help. The reason is that anyway no referee would recalculate the structure, so my insight is deeper. The articles are usually of such a quality that it is meaningless to ask other colleagues for help; it would kill their time. And it is also my experience that most people do the refereeing quite reluctantly. In some cases where I find some chemical or structural problems I ask the colleagues for advice. |
| 16 | Mar 14, 2011 4:55 PM | As Acta E coeditor, I do not use referees, but do it all myself |
| 17 | Mar 14, 2011 3:53 PM | A reviewer pool is no different to the editorial board. |
| 18 | Mar 14, 2011 3:46 PM | List of Acta authors with number of papers published in the last three years. |
| 19 | Mar 14, 2011 3:15 PM | reviewer pool
some type of keyword search that automatically suggests upon submission people publishing related work. |
| 20 | Mar 14, 2011 2:55 PM | ?? |
| 21 | Mar 14, 2011 2:23 PM | Not aware of any |
| 22 | Mar 14, 2011 2:06 PM | I usually don't ask for a referee (Acta E) but it would be useful to be able to find one easily if the need arose |
| 23 | Mar 14, 2011 1:58 PM | ? |
| 24 | Mar 14, 2011 1:51 PM | rewiewer/pool board |
| 25 | Mar 14, 2011 1:49 PM | At the moment, I have no clear idea |
| 26 | Mar 14, 2011 1:45 PM | reviewer pool with the scope of interest for every person |
| 27 | Mar 14, 2011 1:41 PM | not really applicable to Acta E |
| 28 | Mar 14, 2011 1:35 PM | see above |
| 29 | Mar 14, 2011 1:34 PM | A simple list with names of willing "victims" would be enough. |
| 30 | Mar 14, 2011 1:33 PM | I use the Web of Science to track down suitable referees. |
| 31 | Mar 14, 2011 1:32 PM | More knowledge of the exact areas of research of potential referees |