First culprit: the reward system (not necessarily tenure alone).  What
causes bad research is that many people who are not inclined to, and not
talented in, the art of research are forced to do it by the academic
reward system in general. Of those who have tenure, prolific
authors are a small minority.  But the
large untenured body are doing their best to publish in quantity ("stake
out their turf in the scholarly bibliographies").  It isn't just junior
faculty who are desperate to publish; graduate students need an article
or two out there if they are going to go job hunting.  All these folks
are hampered not only by the clock that is running, but by the long
times it takes print pubishers to bring out something, and the even
longer times needed for reviews to appear in print.

Second culprit:  the publisher and the publisher's peer reviewers who
approve the bad research (as Peter Picerno pointed out, hey, the same
folks!)  But in their hats as servants to the journal, it is evident
that here, too, they are not given enough time (one to two weeks) to do
their jobs
correctly.  Why such a stringent deadline on a peer reviewer? Publishers
give *themselves* no such deadlines.  It is after they've spent a year
with the author's material that the author is expected to look it over
and get it back to them within twenty-four hours. Something is skewed.

The solution:  structure rewards on total academic contributions.  The
quality of research is more important than the quantity, and the format
*doesn't* matter!  Broaden criteria.  Reduce the need for redundant and
shallow publication.   The author is providing, in most
cases, an electronic copy that leaves the publisher much less work to do
than in previous years.  So, speed up *that* part of the process in
order to provide more timely appearance of the research in print, but
allow sufficient time for good peer review, which is the value added,
for heaven's sake.

 I doubt very much that a given library's collection is a determining
factor in the quality of peer review. I'll grant it "contributes."  In
any case, I'd like to (would prefer to) hear from a peer reviewer about
such factors.  I'm sure we have many in our profession.

Frieda Rosenberg

        The statement about the quality of research is
        true. The studies of quality that I can cite,
        however, point out that poor preparation is
        at the root of the quality problem.

        Poor libaries surely contribute. Referees
        are expected to evaluate submissions --
        research proposals as well as reports --
        within a week or two. Interlibrary loans can
        never provide adequate support.

        More details in "Undermining Peer Review"
        [SOCIETY. 38(2) 47-54. 2001]

        Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>

        PS Tenure is really not the issue, since the most
        prolific authors, a relative handful, all have tenure