Although there has been an explosion in the number of journals no one discipline has so many journals/articles that this should be a problem. Having reviewed almost 100 manuscripts, dozens of proposals, and even some legislation I can say that if you want to contribute in this manner you can. I recall talking to one older prof who is on ecolog who simply can't keep up with the peer review requests he gets. As an editor, there is no need to have a paper reviewed by the top researcher in the field. In fact, I usually ask such individuals to recommend a grad student or other faculty member. Sometimes the individual will take it, but they ALWAYS give me good leads. In fact, I can say definitively that PHD students tend to give the most critical reviews. It is my job as the editor to inform the author how to deal with the reviews.
Consider herpetology. There are ~2000 herpetologists in the US and maybe a dozen outlets. Lets say each outlet got 200 manuscripts submitted each year, that would be 12 x 200 = 2400 manuscripts or about 1.2 manuscripts each in a year. Say there are 5 levels of journals and you can be assured that no one should see more than 6 articles a year. Frankly, anyone should be able to handle peer reviewing 1-2 articles a month. If you can't find a spare hour to review a paper then you have serious issues. IF the paper has rotten writing, then simply state the paper is poorly written and needs help. IF you WANT to give the help, fine, but there is no need for you to re-write people's papers. I've done this occasionally and I have to tie my hands not to correct passive-active voice, wordiness, etc. But, now with track changes and microsoft markup, its pretty simple to do. Ideally, a reviewer should provide constructive criticism that provides the author with a pathway to publication. Simple statements that are digs, and attacks are simply un-needed and frankly inappropriate. This is not the opportunity to be mean, its an opportunity to participate in the scientific process, and all of us should be taking part. Malcolm On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Kersner Golden <[email protected]> wrote: > I would say that part of the problem is also that there are too many > journals competing for reviewers (and readers). As an example, at the > end of the article by Jeremy Fox and Owen L. Petchey there is an > advertisement for a new peer-reviewed ESA journal (Ecosphere Online) > to be launched soon. Therefore, the problem is not only about authors > not doing their reviewing obligations, but also about publishers > trying to sell too many publications. > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Anna Renwick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > But what is there aim at the moment - surely the same argument could > apply > > and that they don't assign enough time etc because they get nothing for > it. > > > > Dr Anna R. Renwick > > Research Ecologist > > British Trust for Ornithology, > > The Nunnery, > > Thetford, > > Norfolk, > > IP24 2PU, > > UK > > Tel: +44 (0)1842 750050; Fax: +44 (0)1842 750030 > > > > > > > > Registered Charity No 216652 (England & Wales) No SC039193 (Scotland) > > > > Company Limited by Guarantee No 357284 (England & Wales) > > > > Opinions expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the BTO. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Amartya Saha > > Sent: 22 July 2010 16:09 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fixing peer review - elegant new proposal and > > petition > > > > Its a good idea; however there is a possibility of the quality of > > reviews deteriorating, whereby reviewers may not assign the time and > > effort required for an indepth review, as their main aim would be to > > get as many "PubCreds" as possible. > > cheers > > Amartya > > > > > > Quoting Jeremy Fox <[email protected]>: > > > >> The peer review system is breaking down and will soon be in crisis: > >> increasing numbers of submitted manuscripts mean that demand for reviews > > is > >> outstripping supply. This is a classic "tragedy of the commons," in > which > >> individuals have every incentive to exploit the "reviewer commons" by > >> submitting manuscripts, but little or no incentive to contribute > reviews. > >> The result is a system increasingly dominated by "cheats" (individuals > who > >> submit papers without doing proportionate reviewing), with increasingly > >> random and potentially biased results as more and more manuscripts are > >> rejected without external review. > >> > >> In the latest issue of the ESA Bulletin (July 2010, v. 91, p. 325), Owen > >> Petchey and I propose a classic solution to this classic tragedy: > >> privatizing the commons. Specifically, we propose that instead of being > > free > >> to exploit the reviewer commons at will, authors should have to "pay" > for > >> their submissions using a novel "currency" called PubCreds, earned by > >> performing reviews. We discuss how this simple, powerful idea could be > >> implemented in practice, and describe its advantages over previously > >> proposed solutions. > >> > >> The article is available at > >> <http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/0012-9623-91.3.325>. > >> > >> Owen and I are very serious about wanting to see this idea, or a > suitable > >> alternative, implemented. We have set up a petition at > >> <http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fix-peer-review/>. Please sign if > you > >> support this idea, at least enough to want to see it further discussed. > > The > >> petition site also has a link to the article, and a blog where we'll be > >> updating on progress of the idea and responding to comments. > >> > >> PubCreds are already set to be discussed by the ESA Publications > > Committee, > >> and by numerous other ecology journals. If you're as frustrated as Owen > > and > >> I by the recent deterioration of the peer review process, now's the time > > to > >> speak up and take action. Please sign the petition, and pass it on to > your > >> colleagues and students. > >> > > > > > > > > www.bio.miami.edu/asaha > > > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
