Everything Hertz

Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollars, why negative comments on peer reviews need to be normalised, plus much more. Some more details: - The pros and cons of collaborative peer review (in which all peer reviewers discuss the paper after all individual peer reviews have been submitted - How technology can constrain journal operations - The strange engineered delay in paper reviews (I doesn't take 2-3 weeks to review a paper) - Michael's proposal for a system in which people can nominate they have time in the near future to review a paper and then papers can be sent to them so they're rapidly reviewed - Journal submission interfaces - Michael's take on paying peer reviewers - Who owns peer reviews? - Would negative (anonomous or not) comments on an open peer review report penalise authors in the future?