Oxford University Press is non-profit
********************* Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Saint Xavier University Department of Biological Sciences 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, IL 60655 Ph: 773-298-3514 Fax: 773-298-3536 [email protected] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sheila Ward Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers Is there a list anywhere of the journals with not-for-profit publishers? Sheila Ward On 2015-03-30 16:06, Ganter, Philip wrote: > If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher > hiding publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, > then I think most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid. > > If the model is the older model of professional societies and > individual scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a > service to their field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier > posting) then most would disagree with Atanu as there is no money for > paying reviewers and we all benefit from their work. > > There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, > was seen by most scientists as more common. This perception produced > the comment about free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you > personally. > > Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed > Elselvier any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than > the communication of quality scientific work taking command of science > publishing. Profit is a great motivator, as free market exponents > continually remind us. So great, in fact, that other motives are > over-ridden when push comes to shove. Removing profit should be a > priority and funding agencies should lead the way by requiring > sufficient publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well as > requiring those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access > journals. > Science be damned (the journal, that is). > > If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to > publish must also agree to review would have more weight. As it is, > many (seemingly including Atanu) choose not to make money for the > shareholders of large publishing houses. > > Phil Ganter > Biological Sciences > Tennessee State University > > > On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me. >> >> "The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of >> good reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then? >> >> "Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in >> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did >> you mean by "differentially compensated", exactly? >> >> "Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also >> need reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case >> then why did the thread started otherwise? >> >> "If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers >> that you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the >> peer review system and that behavior is not professional at all." - >> Not relevant at all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current >> flaw-filled peer reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act >> like a professional by paying a good salary to the reviewers and see >> the change you want. >> Period. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The economics are really rather different. >>> >>> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in >>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated. >>> >>> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also >>> need reviewers to get their papers published. >>> >>> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers >>> that you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the >>> peer review system and that behavior is not professional at all. >>> >>> ~~~~ +/*\+ ~~~~ >>> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE >>> Professor, Natural Resource Management Co-Director, Geospatial >>> Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE) South Dakota State University >>> 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA >>> voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX) >>> email: [email protected] >>> http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of >>> papers >>> >>> Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the >>> end they don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the >>> journals charge for a paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent >>> amount of money to the authors for publishing but the people who >>> perform the major role behind the journals' success get unpaid. >>> Sorry, either you pay the reviewers (nobody is interested in your >>> subscription waiver or something like that) a standard money or you >>> keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to do reviews these >>> days". When you're doing business, be professional. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli >>> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Good morning, >>> > in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many >>> > people decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many >>> > of the Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are >>> > registered on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited >>> > to do so and I haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it >>> > from colleagues) - but maybe it could help to actually get a >>> > credit for the reviewing work, and who knows, perhaps making it >>> > more official and less prone to fraud? >>> > Thanks for your input. >>> > Stefano >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young >>> > <[email protected]> ha scritto: >>> > >>> > >>> > It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and >>> > reminisce about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were >>> > thinking similarly at that time? The same things have been said >>> > regarding formula funding and IDC rates and while comparison with >>> > the past is good, there needs to be a balance with what kinds of >>> > creative solutions we can come up with for the future. >>> > Steve >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > >>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 <[email protected]>: >>> > >> >>> > >> > 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-p >>> > >>eer- >>> > >>revi >>> > >> > >>>ew/ >>> > >> > >>> < >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> > >>> > >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-p >>> > >>eer- >>> > >>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-t >>> > >> > >>> >> o- >>> > >> > >>> >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-j >>> > >> > >>> >> ourn >>> > >> > >>> >> als/ >>> > >> > >>> >> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> -- >>> > >> > >> 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. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* >>> *Columbus Ohio 43220* >>> *352-870-1228* >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* >> *Columbus Ohio 43220* >> *352-870-1228* -- Sheila Ward, PhD
