In his Opinion on Should Journals Compensate Referees? (Notices 54
(2007), no. 5, p. 589) Michael Fried seems to answer that question by Yes.
Will then referees be responsible for the errors in papers? Fried's
opinion
seems to be that they are responsible already now, without payment:
".... it
is my experience that over 50% of papers (yes, tough topics, but ...)
have
very serious .... errors. This reflects poorly on referees. Why
referees and
not authors?"
I don't see clear answer to that question in what follows
there. I was always told and was convinced when actively editing
journals
that the authors not the referees are ultimately responsible for
errors. (Of
course the referee should do her/his best to notice them). This seems
to be
supported by the following stanza in R.P. Boas's humorous but seriously
meant ("Let me make it clear to you This is what we'll never do")
Retroactive Editorial Policy (Amer. Math. Monthly 89 (1982), p. 32; the
other three stanzas are also worth reading):
We often note that authors, even those
whose work is strong,
They sometimes got too far and say a thing or two that's wrong.
You needn't worry very much about a stray mistake:
If you can fool the referee, what difference does it make?
But not in my journal.
One more short note about deadlines for referees. There is almost
nothing so
annoying for (active) editors and editorial staff than a referee from
whom,
notwithstanding reminders, one does not hear for months and months,
while
the authors keep asking "what happened to my paper?". There may also be
a
slight chance of priority problems: while priority can be established
from
submission dates, people tend to quote where they first saw the result.
Editors-in-chiefs and managing editors are usually patient when the
referee
informs them approximately how much more time they need but not if they
get
only silence.
Also referees should say (write) as soon as possible if they can not or
would not referee the paper (e.g. for lack of time and certainly if it
is
"far from topics in which the prospective referee publishes papers").
Judging from the reports we finally got, many editors (including me)
got the
impression that many referees (apparently not Fried and his # 1
correspondent) were tardy not because they did a thorough job but
because
they delayed so long starting it.
Jànos Aczèl
University of Waterloo, Ont., Emeritus
jdaczel@math.uwaterloo.ca