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?- Every paper gets negative peer-review comments, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad paper - Michael proposes an explicit "speculation" section for papers, where authors get free reign to basically say whatever they wantOther links- Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana)- James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)- Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff!$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Episode citation Special Guest: Michael Eisen.