Hi, Malcolm, I read your entire post, and found it quite moving. I don't know how to estimate or balance the human cost involved, but I'd hold it up as better way to achieve scientific excellence and integrity than the slick procedures of for-profit scientific publishing.
Martin 2015-03-28 12:31 GMT-04:00 Malcolm McCallum < [email protected]>: > 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. >
