Chillin'Competition

Relaxing whilst doing Competition Law is not an Oxymoron

Archive for June 4th, 2010

It’s nothing as it seems

with 2 comments

I recently peer-reviewed a paper for a competition law journal.

The paper was crap: a recycled and biased “expert” opinion, poorly translated from a non-English language to English, with a significant amount of considerations that were entirely off-topic (technical discussion of the regulatory framework for IPRs).  My assessment was negative, bad, tough.  I made loads of comments, supposing that the editors would forward them to the author, who in turn would try to implement and/or contest them. In brief, I expected to see a new version of the paper, or at least receive some explanation to the effect that my comments were not relevant, etc.  My experience is that this is how it works with professional journals.

Anyway, I was quite surprised to learn today, by myself, that the paper had been published. I have not yet seen it but I doubt that it differs much from the initial version. So I am pissed off: I spent a considerable time on this peer-review, and this was probably useless.

More importantly: European legal journals like to say that they now  implement peer-review procedures, but I believe that the practical implementation of such procedures remains far from perfect, and that politics still play a huge role in the publication process. It’s nothing as it seems (as Pearl Jam said in a great song).

(Image possibly subject to copyrights: source here)

Written by Nicolas Petit

4 June 2010 at 11:09 am