I don't know, I enjoy doing peer reviews. But, I don't treat peer review like editing a journal. If the paper is ripe with bad writing, I might correct a paragraph and tell them to do the whole paper. Mostly, I dwell on did they miss citations, cover the literature, approach the problem properly, analyze it correctly, explain what they did adequately, Report the results fully, and discuss the implications logically. Then, make recommendations to improve the paper. I don't re-write it and I don't think anyone else hould either.
I don't know how many peer reviews I have done in teh past 10 years, I list 80 or so on my CV, but its actually well over 150. This week, I for the first time recommended a paper be rejected due to plagiarism, not self-plagiarism either (which is really an issue of copyright violation, not plagiarism anyway), but blagiarism verbatim right off of Wikipedia. How lazy are you that you copy and past your intro material off of wikipedia? ITs bad enough when students do it in class, but in a scientific manuscript? Wow On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Stephen L. Young <[email protected]> wrote: > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars. > Steve > > > > > > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep > >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't > >recommend another potential reviewer. > > > > > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done > >> work > >> that crosses over. > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an > >> agronomic landscape. > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is > >>versed > >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who > >> does > >> amphibian tox. When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it. This is INCREDIBLY > >> productive and successful. We don't take reviewer recommendations at > >>HCB. > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too. > >>I'm > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way. It > >> gets > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot > >> of > >> people and you also tick off your fair share. Also, if you are doing > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end > >> up > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff. It isn't long, and > >> everyone knows everyone. > >> > >> Malcolm > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric > >> <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I > >>>do, > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, > >>>unbiased > >>> review > >>> > >>> Eric S. Menges > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ > >>> [email protected]] on behalf of David Mellor [ > >>> [email protected]] > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of > >>>papers > >>> > >>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services†> >>> that pose > >>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested > >>> reviewer†feature in the submission process to mislead editors into > >>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog > >>> post > >>> > >>> > http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi > >>>ew/ > >>> < > >>> > >>> > http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi > >>>ew/> > >>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening > >>> elsewhere, > >>> and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the > >>> potential tarnish it creates. > >>> > >>> David Mellor > >>> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/> > >>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor > >>> > >>> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed > >>>Central, > >>> > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 journals. That > >>> seems > >>> > like a lot of concentration of power. > >>> > > >>> > Martin M. Meiss > >>> > > >>> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye <[email protected]>: > >>> > > >>> >> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. > >>> >> > >>> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ > >>> >> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- > >>> >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ > >>> >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP > >> Environmental Studies Program > >> Green Mountain College > >> Poultney, Vermont > >> > >> “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich > >> array > >> of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a > >> many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature > >>lovers > >> alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as > >> Americans.†> >> -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 > >> into law. > >> > >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > >> Allan > >> Nation > >> > >> 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! > >> > >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > >> Wealth w/o work > >> Pleasure w/o conscience > >> Knowledge w/o character > >> Commerce w/o morality > >> Science w/o humanity > >> Worship w/o sacrifice > >> Politics w/o principle > >> > >> 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. > >> > > -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 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! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle 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.
