On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Mark Johnston <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Steven, > > I believe what is missing from nearly all conversations about scientific > publishing, including the [editorial cited] below, is the importance of > editors. Johnston, Mark (2009) Editorial: Reclaiming Responsibility for Setting Standards. Genetics 181: 355â356 DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.100818 http://www.genetics.org/content/181/2/355.full Dear Mark, I agree completely that a qualified and conscientious editor who reviews the submissions, selects the peer reviewers, and adjudicates the reports and revisions -- the "primus inter pares" to whom both authors and referees are answerable -- is an essential component of peer review, as you state in your informed and impassioned editorial, cautioning against journals run instead by professional editors rather than practising scientists and scholars. > Everyone bows to peer-review, but few seem to understand or acknowledge the > importance of editors to distill those reviews and adjudicate the reviewers' > opinions. That is the real (and essential) role of journals. You are absolutely right. Peer review is only as effective as its editor. (And once text-generation, access-provision and archiving is offloaded onto institutional repositories, peer review -- including the crucial role of the primus inter pares -- will be not only the real and essential function of journals, but the only one.) Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature [online] (5 Nov. 1998), Exploit Interactive 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B. (2004) (ed.) Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp. 235-242. http://cogprints.org/1646 > The lengthy thread [here] only alludes to (quite briefly) the importance of > editors for marshalling fair and effective peer review: > > > SH: > > "what's important is that it really provides answerable, interactive peer > > review, as a precondition for certification at the body's known quality > > level" > > I attach my [editorial on] the importance of (peer) editing to science. I > sincerely believe peer-editing is the foundation of science and must be > defended. http://www.genetics.org/content/181/2/355.full Bravo for your editorial. I think Open Access can help restore the peer-editor to the role they had played in the best journals (and, in a few, still do), by focusing journal publication on its sole essential function in the online/OA era. Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal. In: Cope, B. & Phillips, A (Eds.) The Future of the Academic Journal. Chandos. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15617/ Stevan Harnad > Sincerely, > > Mark Johnston > > Mark Johnston > Editor-in-Chief > GENETICS (the peer-edited journal of the Genetics Society of America) > http://www.genetics.org
