In regard to this issue, we should remind that we scientists also fall into this trap. In publishing a paper, we often look for a journal that has high probability of being published. In a way, all you need is several likely minded peers to have your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Below is a quote: Hilborn, R. 2006. Faith-based fisheries. Fisheries 31:554-555. A community of belief has arisen whose credo has become “fisheries management has failed, we need to abandon the old approaches and use marine protected areas and ecosystem-based management.” I fear that this belief has shaded the peer review process so badly that almost any paper showing a significant decline in fish abundance or benefits of marine protected areas has a high probability of getting favorable reviews in some journals regardless of the quality of the analysis. Critical peer review has been replaced by faith-based support for ideas and too many scientists have become advocates. An advocate knows the answer and looks for evidence to support it; a scientist asks nature how much support there is for competing hypotheses. http://www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/fisheries/fisheries_3111.pdf Toshihide "Hamachan" Hamazaki, PhD : 濱崎俊秀：浜ちゃん Alaska Department of Fish & Game Division of Commercial Fisheries 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Ph: 907-267-2158 Fax: 907-267-2442 Cell: 907-440-9934 E-mail: [email protected]
