That someone would suggest that 19 authors is equivalent to "6 times as much peer review" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of peer review. Nature itself lists "independence from the authors and their institutions" first among criteria for referees. To suggest that authors serve as their own peer reviewers is like suggesting that U.S. banks regulate themselves. The fact of the matter is that the commentary was not peer reviewed.
"The authors included journal editors quite familiar with the scientific publication process, very practiced writers and meticulous reviewers." The problems with mis- and and self citation, misrepresentation or at least gross oversimplification of facts, lurid language and sophomoric rhetorical tricks suggest that either not all the authors read the final draft or collectively they and the Nature editorial process failed to produce a paper that can withstand scrutiny and command respect. I am asking Nature to review its editorial process for commentaries, based on the present case. There is a serious issue here, but it is one of nuance. I would have expected a commentary in Nature to lead the way toward consensus, not to regurgitate extremes of a debate. David Duffy Matt Chew wrote:"An observation or two: an opinion paper with 19 authors effectively receives 6 times as much peer review in the process of its drafting and revision as any typical research paper receives under normal circumstances. The authors included journal editors quite familiar with the scientific publication process, very practiced writers and meticulous reviewers. Nature was under no obligation to publish the piece if it failed to meet their standards. We were under no obligation to submit one that didn't meet our standards. Our purpose in writing was to expand a conversation already well underway by presenting our views formally and in the most accessible and noticeable forum possible. That is readily distinguishable from trying end a conversation by telling you what to think. Indeed, we are encouraging you to critically examine issues that are most often presented as axiomatic. Some of you are doing just that. We appreciate your efforts, and we are paying attention. Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences" David Cameron Duffy Ph.D. Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Chew <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:10 am Subject: [ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins To: [email protected] > An observation or two: an opinion paper with 19 authors > effectively receives > 6 times as much peer review in the process of its drafting and > revision as > any typical research paper receives under normal circumstances. > The authors > included journal editors quite familiar with the scientific > publicationprocess, very practiced writers and meticulous > reviewers. Nature was under > no obligation to publish the piece if it failed to meet their > standards. We > were under no obligation to submit one that didn't meet our > standards. Our > purpose in writing was to expand a conversation already well > underway by > presenting our views formally and in the most accessible and > noticeableforum possible. That is readily distinguishable > from trying end a > conversation by telling you what to think. Indeed, we are > encouraging you > to critically examine issues that are most often presented as > axiomatic.Some of you are doing just that. We appreciate > your efforts, and we are > paying attention. > > Matthew K Chew > Assistant Research Professor > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences > > ASU Center for Biology & Society > PO Box 873301 > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA > Tel 480.965.8422 > Fax 480.965.8330 > [email protected] or [email protected] > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
