Herpetological Conservation and Biology is still published by researchers without a publishing house. There is a very good reason you don't see this much anymore, and it is not cost. . If the journal is run as an online outfit, keeping its presence on the web can move forward for as little as $5 a mo. You can do all page layouts in a multitude of ways. We started out simply re-formatting the layout in Word. Journal of North American Herpetology (CNAH) still does it this way. This works find while you are publishing 10 or so articles per issue, many of which are only 3-5 pages long. But, there are numerous problems using word that can cause individual papers to be really finicky to layout. The bottom line is the program was never intended for this. We did this from 2006-2010, but by 2010, we were getting a lot of articles that were 10 pages or more, and started getting some monographic pieces. IT went from the early days of formatting all the papers in 1-2 days to taking 1-2 weeks (all day).
In 2011, I invested in a copy of Quark Express (~$200). IT automatee some of the functions and spits out a pdf that is very nice. THis dropped back the time investment to 1-2 days again. However, since then, we have doubled our papers (~15-20/issue). THis means tht one person can no longer do all the formatting/page layouts, which I have done most of since 2006. The licence for Quark Express allowed 2 copies. So, I went through the process of training half a dozen people, and in every case, when they learn what is involved, they drop out. Honestly, I don't blame them. Editing articles is a lot of work, doing all the minutia involved in a layout is a lot more work. I wanted us to train about 5-6 people to do layouts, then no one would be stuck with tons of layout work. Howevr, to do this with Quark Express (or similar alternative programs), we would have to buy about five copies of QE. That is not possible. As of this year, we are using LaTex to do layouts. It automates almost everything, but you have to go in and do LaTex programming which a lot of people in the life sciences don't know. I paid out ~$200 for a consultant to write us a template page, and you pretty much copy and paste into the template. Then, you have to go through and re-italicize, bold, correct special characters, things like that. Tables are written in code fairly easily, as are figures. I plan to have 5-6 of our copy editors trained on this so that the bottle neck (me) does not exist. The best part about this, is that technically, an author could take their own final copy and the template, load it onto Overleaf.com (or download texStudio and ProTex for free), do the layout on their own, and send it back to the editor. This procedure is a place holder until we are able to adopt PLoS One's open jouranl systems that is written in xml and autogenerates layouts. The problem is, thus far, I know html, but I am not fluent in XML and there are soem server-type computer stuff that must be done, and I cannot do that. So far, we don't know or have not found anyone who can, short of a consultant for in excess of $1,000. So, we will continue with LaTex, which frankly I like a lot after getting used to it. So, if you sit down and do the math, when I was fully employed at a university, I spent my 40-50 hr a week working with students, sitting on committees, teaching, and that stuff. Then, for the last year I have literally spent about 20 hrs a week on layouts...essentially continuous journal work from issue to issue. Then, I need to crap my research in there somewhere and apply for jobs! Can you see why we don't have profs running a journal anymore? Scorpius is the only other one run like this that I am aware of, and lets face it, the submission rate for scorpion papers is pretty small. We are international, and publish more page(s and articles than any of the other herpetology journals published elsewhere, and our impact rating has grown every year. IT is currently a little lower than Jherp/Herpetologica/Copeia, though last year was higher than Copeia. This year's impact rating is wrong, because like several other journal, they did not add in a year's worth of citations (same thing happened to Copeia and several other journals), they were told but have yet to fix it. When you are an independent journal, you do not have the backing of an Allen Press or Blackwell to breath down their necks. In fact, getting our first impact rating required me to threaten a lawsuit, which immediately resulted in a rating (the year I threatened them was the year prior to our first rating. Had we got one then, when we should of, we would have had the highest impact rating among herpetology journals that year). The growth after getting an impact rating was so strong that it has suppressed our rating. However, it appears we are now at an assymptote and the rating should rise pretty quick here. This is a phenomena you see with PLoS ONe, due to a large nubmer of papers that are < 1 yr old deflating the nubmer of citations in the calculation of the 2yr rating (most papers tend to only start accumulating cites in their second year). I actually wonder how the heck I managed to get all my school work done, devote enough time to student, and still operate the journal, but I did. I do know that my productivity in publishing has been lower for the past five years due to time invested in the journal. But, part of that is also due to a major paper that took a good five years to write and will hopefully be coming out in the next six mo to a year (in review). Doing 20-30 pages (typed) of mathematical calculations on extinction rates tends to take a while, especially when you do all the work, and then the IUCN makes a majaor update!!! Anyway, maybe that illustrates why most journals eventually end up in publishing houses. They are easier, and generally add some bells and whistles, lower some costs (several things can be very costly for a single journal or group of journals, but cheap for a single publishing house with 100+ journals). Find five people on this listserv who are willing to sit and do layouts for every paper in an issue. You have a challenge there reminiscent of Lott's quest in Sodum. ;) I wonder if anyone read this whole thing? Malcolm On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm till wondering about the fact that one financial interest controls (in > some ways at least) 277 journals. Does each of those journals have > independent editors? Is some bureaucrat assigning "peer" reviewers to > journals whose subject matter is utterly unknown to him/her? Is it handled > the way Dunkin' Donuts might change the formula for their cream filling, > and then send it out to all the franchises? > > What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of a > working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small allotments > from the university's research foundation, with high-level graduate > students doing some of the editorial work as part of a stipend deal? > Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it seems to me > like a better recipe for scientific integrity than being a profit-center of > a corporate machine. > > Your thoughts, please... > > Martin M. Meiss > > 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young <sl...@cornell.edu>: > > > 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" <jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu> > > 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 > > >> <emen...@archbold-station.org> > > >> 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 [ > > >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [ > > >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com] > > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM > > >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > >>> 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 <mme...@gmail.com> > 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 <ino...@umd.edu>: > > >>> > > > >>> >> 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.
