From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 02 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!not-for-mail From: smith-una@yale.edu (Una Smith) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Online Journal Summary: Not a free service Keywords: online journal clinical trials subscription Message-ID: <1fl7ejINN57g@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> Date: 3 Dec 92 15:00:35 GMT Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 8 NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu Page 1310 of Science vol. 20, 20 November 1992 is an advertisement for The Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials. See it for details. -- Una Smith Biology Department smith-una@yale.edu Yale University New Haven, CT 06511 From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Dec 03 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!kristoff From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: test 1 of news Message-ID: Date: 4 Dec 92 22:04:05 GMT Distribution: bionet Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology Lines: 2 Please ignore. Test of posting to news. From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Dec 03 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!NET.BIO.NET!kristoff From: kristoff@NET.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: test 2 Message-ID: Date: 4 Dec 92 22:04:56 GMT Sender: kristoff@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 5 mail to jrnlnote@net.bio.net This newsgroup/list is not yet officially open. From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Dec 03 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!uknet!daresbury!news From: kristoff@net.bio.net (Dave Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: test 3 Message-ID: <1992Dec4.220640.22299@gserv1.dl.ac.uk> Date: 4 Dec 92 22:05:48 GMT Sender: list-admin@daresbury.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Lines: 2 Original-To: jrnlnote@uk.ac.daresbury mail to jrnlnote@daresbury.ac.uk From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 16 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!utcsri!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Welcome! Charter. Endorsements. Topics. Message-ID: <92352.092949FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 17 Dec 92 14:29:49 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 176 Welcome to BIONET.JOURNALS.NOTE. Conception--> Execution --> Publication. However great the idea, however brilliant the experiment, they are of little value unless adequately communicated. And your publication may be another's inspiration. Thus the process is cyclical: Conception / \ / \ Publication <------- Execution Bionet.Journals.Note, hopefully will assist overcoming the myriad of obstacles which slow the cycle. 1. "CHARTER" 2. ENDORSEMENTS FROM JOURNAL EDITORS 3. POSSIBLE TOPICS 1. CHARTER Bionet.Journals.Note is seen as a forum for debate between editors, authors, readers, reference librarians, reviewers, citation analysts, reviewers, etc., on subjects of general interest. For example, where to submit to? Having had a good idea, done the experiments and written a paper, one is faced with the problem of where to submit it. The wrong decision at this stage can cause a variety of problems, not the least of which is delay. [Of course, not too far down the line when electronic journals get going, this problem will not be so pressing.] Two examples have appeared on the "net" over the past few weeks. In one case an author was upset that he had received no correspendence from the editor of a journal for several months. Someone was able to tell him that the editor had been in an automobile accident and that may have delayed things. In another case an editorial office had moved. Manuscripts sent in by courier were being forwarded by regular mail, with concomitant delays. Much of the "inside" information on journals is gathered informally over the years, so that "old hands" are less at a disadvantage then "new". Hopefully, some of this experience could be passed along to new authors. For example, the journal Nature states that "less than 50%" of the papers received are actually sent out for review. What does that mean? 40%, 30%, 10%? If the answer is 10% then papers must be written with the primary intent of getting through the initial editorial filter, rather than satisfying subsequent reviewers. Apart from use by those who submit to journals, I envisage that the new forum would act as a bulletin board for journal editors who might want to post their latest "Instructions for Authors" or announce new changes in Editorial Policy. D.R.Forsdyke ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ENDORSEMENTS BY JOURNAL EDITORS During the period for Discussion, two endorsements were received: BIOTECHNIQUES I endorse enthusiastically Donald Forsdykes's proposal to establish a new Bionet group for the exchange of information concerning journals. As the editor of BioTechniques, which is associated with BioTechNet, I am eager to promote the use of computer networks to improve communications among editors, authors, reviewers, readers and reference librarians. Because of the inevitable proliferation of scientific information, publishers must become more innovative about using electronic media and more responsive to the needs of the scientific community. Although many problems are associated with development of the "electronic journal," I hope that discussion of such topics will provide constructive feedback to editors and publishers. Sincerely, Jim Ellingboe --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BIOCHEM.BIOPHYS.ACTA Dr. Forsdyke: In your proposal for a journals.note newsgroup, the last paragraph noting potential involvement of journal editors might be expanded to include the concept of 2-way interaction between authors and journals, rather than the apparent suggestion for a 1-way announcement medium. The potential for editors and editorial staff to respond in an open discussion forum to general points would be beneficial in developing the role of journals in response to the demands of the community which they serve. However, it should also be noted that private lines of communication would remain more appropriate when dealing with points related to individual submissions. I look forward to voting positively on this initiative in due course. Regards, John Dyer Editorial Manager Biochimica et Biophysica Acta -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. POSSIBLE TOPICS LIST How does an Editor select a reviewer? How many reviewers for a paper? One, two, three..? Should papers be transmitted by courier or regular post? Anonymous reviewing? Which journals are likely to be receptive of "way out" ideas? Which journals are prone to defend the conventional wisdom? Does the annual Impact Rating influence an Editor's choice of manuscripts Is submitting a paper to Nature/Science a waste of time when so few papers can be published? Salami publishing? Honorary authorship (Fabrikant and all that)? Should a technician be a coauthor or be mentioned in acknowledgements? What is a reasonable time for a reviewer to retain a paper? Electronic publishing? How should the paper media cite items in the electronic media? Do editors of the paper media feel threatened by the electronic revolution? Should they? Peer review. Publish or perish? Order of authors' names on a paper? Should reviewers be paid? Does any journal in the biomedical sciences pay authors? Science writing and literary style? When should a finding be described as "novel"? Since many readers do not have English as a first language, should papers in English take this into account? Should all scientific writing be in English? Double publishing,...of papers?...of abstracts? Equal sins? Priority and credit. Fraud and plagiarism. Page charges. Confidentiality of reviewing. Do editors deliberately slow manuscript handling to give authors more time to reconsider? Better to submit to a non-profit journal (e.g. Biochem.J., BioEssays)? Do Editors retain unique formats (e.g. citation by author rather than by number) to make it more difficult for authors to revise manuscripts for submission elsewhere? What are the "rights" of an author? We have come a long way since the Journal des Scavans (Jan 1665) and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (March 1665). Perhaps future generations will see the launching of Bionet.Journals.Note as an important innovation in the growth and management of scientific knowledge Thanks to those of you who voted to support the project. Sincerely, Don Forsdyke Department of Biochemistry, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada K7L3N6 forsdyke@qucdn.queensu.ca E-mail addresses: jrnlnote@daresbury.ac.uk jrnlnote@net.bio.net To request e-mail subscriptions if people don't have USENET access: biosci@net.bio.net (in the Americas and Pacific Rim) biosci@daresbury.ac.uk (in Europe, Africa, and Central Asia) If you do not have access to USENET news software and need to receive postings by e-mail, please request a subscription to JOURNALS.NOTE by mailing to one of the following addresses depending upon your location: biosci@net.bio.net Americas and the Pacific Rim biosci@daresbury.ac.uk Europe, Africa, and Central Asia These addresses are read by people, not machines, so request your subscription in English (not C, FORTRAN, LISTSERV, etc.). Please DO NOT mail requests for e-mail subscriptions to either of the journalnote e-mail posting addresses or you will send copies of your request to everyone around the world on the mailing list instead of just to the list maintainers! If you would like information about USENET and news software, please contact biosci@net.bio.net. From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 16 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!gateway From: jiangky@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Keyuan Jiang) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: reviewer selection Message-ID: <9212171548.AA14821@necs.vuse> Date: 17 Dec 92 15:48:56 GMT Sender: daemon@cs.utexas.edu Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway Lines: 9 NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu Has anyone addressed on "how an editor selects a reviewer"? I'd like to learn something about it. Keyuan Jiang Biomedical Engineering & Computing Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tn From owner-note@net.bio.net Sun Dec 20 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!uunet!utcsri!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Author's Rights Message-ID: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 21 Dec 92 16:05:15 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 29 AUTHOR'S RIGHTS One useful function of this forum might be discussion of author's rights. Then, somewhere down the line someone might be prepared to draft a Charter of Author's Rights which individual authors could refer to when having problems with an editor. By the same taken, perhaps there should be a Charter of Editor's Rights. I present here one obvious, and one not-so-obvious, item for consider- ation: 1. Judgements concerning the acceptance, reviewing and publication of a paper should be concerned with the characteristics of the paper itself and not with the race, sex, creed or colour of the author. [One can recall that a century ago, female authors had to adopt a male pseudonym to ensure fair evaluation (e.g. George Eliot). 2. A letter from an editor to an author stating that a paper has been accepted (without qualification), means that the journal is irrevocably committed to publishing the paper without undue delay. [Several years ago I had a firm letter of acceptance from an Editor. Subsequently the editorship was changed and the the new editor declined to honour the previous editor's commitments.] Do these two statements seem appropriate for inclusion in a Charter? Sincerely, Don Forsdyke Discussion Leader From owner-note@net.bio.net Sun Dec 20 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!kristoff From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: Date: 21 Dec 92 23:21:10 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology Lines: 17 I found it interesting when looking for academic jobs a long time back that faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from "name" schools. Of course, there may be other reasons (as I am sure scientists from name schools might quickly reply), but I was wondering whether or not any journals ever review papers either completely blind (no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation) or partially blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)? This might be an interesting experiment?!? Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager kristoff@net.bio.net From owner-note@net.bio.net Mon Dec 21 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!kristoff From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: Date: 22 Dec 92 16:31:03 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology Lines: 25 kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes: >I found it interesting when looking for academic jobs a long time back >that faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were >excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from >"name" schools. Of course, there may be other reasons (as I am sure >scientists from name schools might quickly reply), but I was wondering >whether or not any journals ever review papers either completely blind >(no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation) or partially >blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)? This might be an >interesting experiment?!? I probably shot this one off too quickly as I realized a few seconds after sending that most authors' propensity to reference their own past work far more than that of others would make blind reviewing rather difficult unless one were to gut the paper of such references which would not be practical in most cases. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager kristoff@net.bio.net From owner-note@net.bio.net Tue Dec 22 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!ames!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!aclcb.purdue.edu!MURIANA From: muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M. Muriana) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: Date: 23 Dec 92 14:38:02 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (USENET News) Reply-To: muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu Organization: Purdue University AIDS Center Lines: 20 In article , kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes: >....... faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were >excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from >"name" schools. >........ but I was wondering whether or not any journals ever review papers > either completely blind (no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation) > or partially blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)? This might be an >interesting experiment?!? >> Dave Kristofferson and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled). This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews. Merry Christmas, Peter M. Muriana From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!emory!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!mek104 From: MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's rights Message-ID: <92358.192918MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 24 Dec 92 00:29:18 GMT Organization: Penn State University Lines: 31 muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M. Muriana) writes: >and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** the >journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the journal >editor when a split decision is over-ruled). This would likely insure >*better* reviews as well as give credit to those who perform such thankless >tasks as journal reviews. I like Dave's idea of having the author(s) being anonymous to the reviewer, although he raises a good point that, based on one citing one's own work it might be rather easy to determine who wrote what. In addition, those who have been at it long enough may be able to discern a particular author's style, etc. Nevertheless, is there any reason why author(s) *shouldn't* remain anonymous to the reviewer? I see the benefit (necessity?) of keeping reviewers anonymous, but couldn't the reviewers be made known to the author upon acceptance of a paper, so that they can be included in acknowledgments? This would take care of any non-professional backlash toward the reviewers in the event of rejection and would give credit for their contribution to the work, as suggested above. One other point. Shouldn't the author have access to ALL written correspondence between reviewer, associate editor and editor regarding a paper? To those who may know, what sorts of things are communicated from an associate editor to the editor that are blanked out on coppies of letters forwarded to the autho Dowsn't the author have the right to know *all* of the criteria for why a paper requires revision or was rejected? Mark Kubiske < MEK104@PSUVM.PSU.EDU > School of Forest Resources Penn State University From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!daresbury!mrccrc!warwick!uknet!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk!agb16 From: agb16@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk (Alan Baxter) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: <1992Dec24.075004.18551@infodev.cam.ac.uk> Date: 24 Dec 92 07:50:04 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news) Organization: U. of Cambridge, England Lines: 22 Nntp-Posting-Host: mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk With regards to the following: "I found it interesting when looking for academic jobs a long time back that faculty I spoke to at some small schools felt that reviewers were excessively critical of their work versus papers that originated from "name" schools. Of course, there may be other reasons (as I am sure scientists from name schools might quickly reply), but I was wondering whether or not any journals ever review papers either completely blind (no mention of the authors' identity and affiliation) or partially blind (e.g., no mention of the affiliation)? This might be an interesting experiment?!?" The problem with that is that science is very much a matter of reputation. Unless reviewers actually repeat the experiment as part of the review process the only guarantee that the results are real is the reputation of the authors. I for one would be very distressed if certain workers in my field (who have on several occasions fabricated results) were submitted to a review process as kind and forgiving as that given to an unknown. Regards Alan From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL!MARDER From: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL (Jonathan Marder) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Anonynimity in the review process (was Authors' rights) Message-ID: <921224130801.b78@agri.huji.ac.il> Date: 24 Dec 92 13:08:01 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 63 From: HUAGRI::BITNET%"Postmaster@net.bio.net (Mail Delivery Subsystem)" 24-DEC-1992 11:50:53.51 To: MARDER@HUJIAGRI <= MAILER@HUJIVMS (M SMTP.MAIL ASCII) CC: Subj: Returned mail: Can't create output Received: by HUJIAGRI (HUyMail-4j4); Thu, 24 Dec 92 11:50:53 +0200 Received: by HUJIVMS via SMTP(134.172.2.69) (HUyMail-V6j); Thu, 24 Dec 92 11:50:05 +0200 Received: by net.bio.net (5.65/IG-2.0) id AA14721; Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:49:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:49:39 -0800 From: Postmaster@net.bio.net (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Subject: Returned mail: Can't create output Message-Id: <9212240949.AA14721@net.bio.net> To: marder@agri.huji.ac.il ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 "/usr/local/etc/fm jrnlnote-list"... Can't create output ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: by net.bio.net (5.65/IG-2.0) id AA14718; Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:49:39 -0800 Message-Id: <9212240949.AA14718@net.bio.net> To: jrnlnote From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il Subject: Re: Author's Rights Date: 24 Dec 92 09:49:35 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: agri.huji.ac.il In article , muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M. Muriana) writes: > and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** > the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the > journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled). > This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit > to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews. > > Merry Christmas, > Peter M. Muriana I've often thought the same myself. Actually I would go even further and get the reviewers to write some brief comments to be published with the paper. I know that Nature already almost does this in the the "News and Views" author often reviewed the article(s) he discusses. But some formal recognition of the reviewers' role is positive. Maybe also reviewers would be more careful if they knew that their names were to be publically associated with the articles they approve. I also believe that the credibility of a publication would be increased by showing that articles were scrutinised by well-known experts. Regarding anonynimity for the authors, there are arguments in both directions. One so-far unstated objection is the issue of credibility. How much should the "reputation" of the author influence the reviewer? (perhaps a provocative question here ...) -- ' Jonathan B. Marder Internet: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL | Department of Agricultural Botany Bitnet: MARDER@HUJIAGRI | /\/ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Phone: (08 or +9728) 481918 |/ \ Faculty of Agriculture Fax: (08 or +9728) 467763 / P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!frmop11!barilvm!vms.huji.ac.il!agri!marder From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: <1992Dec24.094514.1@agri.huji.ac.il> Date: 24 Dec 92 09:49:35 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture Lines: 32 Nntp-Posting-Host: agri.huji.ac.il In article , muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M. Muriana) writes: > and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** > the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the > journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled). > This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit > to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews. > > Merry Christmas, > Peter M. Muriana I've often thought the same myself. Actually I would go even further and get the reviewers to write some brief comments to be published with the paper. I know that Nature already almost does this in the the "News and Views" author often reviewed the article(s) he discusses. But some formal recognition of the reviewers' role is positive. Maybe also reviewers would be more careful if they knew that their names were to be publically associated with the articles they approve. I also believe that the credibility of a publication would be increased by showing that articles were scrutinised by well-known experts. Regarding anonynimity for the authors, there are arguments in both directions. One so-far unstated objection is the issue of credibility. How much should the "reputation" of the author influence the reviewer? (perhaps a provocative question here ...) -- ' Jonathan B. Marder Internet: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL | Department of Agricultural Botany Bitnet: MARDER@HUJIAGRI | /\/ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Phone: (08 or +9728) 481918 |/ \ Faculty of Agriculture Fax: (08 or +9728) 467763 / P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!daresbury!mrccrc!warwick!uknet!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk!agb16 From: agb16@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk (Alan Baxter) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: <1992Dec24.075558.18683@infodev.cam.ac.uk> Date: 24 Dec 92 07:55:58 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news) Organization: U. of Cambridge, England Lines: 18 Nntp-Posting-Host: mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk With regards to: "and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled). This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit" I have advocated this for quite a while, so long as their names are shown if accepted outright. What about the reviewers who haggle over several drafts or ask for huge changes or extensive work - you know, the ones you would kill if you knew who they were! Certainly if the editor overrides the reviewers then that should be stated on the paper. This occurred recently in Science as the reviewers were outraged that it appeared that they had accepted the paper after having discussed it extensively with fellow workers (it was a terrible paper and much of the discussion was about the dubious sanity of the first author). Regards Alan From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL!MARDER From: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL (Jonathan Marder) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Anonynimity in the review process (was Authors' rights) Message-ID: <921224130902.b78@agri.huji.ac.il> Date: 24 Dec 92 13:09:02 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 34 In article , muriana@aclcb.purdue.edu (Peter M. Muriana) writes: > and, and, and, - how about adding the names of the reviewers **on** > the journal article as well (replace a dissenting reviewer by the > journal editor when a split decision is over-ruled). > This would likely insure *better* reviews as well as give credit > to those who perform such thankless tasks as journal reviews. > > Merry Christmas, > Peter M. Muriana I've often thought the same myself. Actually I would go even further and get the reviewers to write some brief comments to be published with the paper. I know that Nature already almost does this in the the "News and Views" author often reviewed the article(s) he discusses. But some formal recognition of the reviewers' role is positive. Maybe also reviewers would be more careful if they knew that their names were to be publically associated with the articles they approve. I also believe that the credibility of a publication would be increased by showing that articles were scrutinised by well-known experts. Regarding anonynimity for the authors, there are arguments in both directions. One so-far unstated objection is the issue of credibility. How much should the "reputation" of the author influence the reviewer? (perhaps a provocative question here ...) -- ' Jonathan B. Marder Internet: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL | Department of Agricultural Botany Bitnet: MARDER@HUJIAGRI | /\/ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Phone: (08 or +9728) 481918 |/ \ Faculty of Agriculture Fax: (08 or +9728) 467763 / P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!kristoff From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Anonynimity in the review process (was Authors' rights) Message-ID: Date: 24 Dec 92 18:35:00 GMT References: <921224130801.b78@agri.huji.ac.il> Distribution: bionet Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology Lines: 17 Our apologies. If you receive a bouncer back from this newsgroup with the note 550 "/usr/local/etc/fm jrnlnote-list"... Can't create output please ignore it. Your message was posted. Kenton is trying to resolve a bug in the archiving software here which is producing this problem. It does not affect distribution of your message, so please do not repost. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager kristoff@net.bio.net From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!dmarble From: dmarble@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Duane F Marble) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Anonynimity in the review process (was Authors' rights) Message-ID: <1992Dec24.132837.8678@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Date: 24 Dec 92 13:28:37 GMT References: <921224130902.b78@agri.huji.ac.il> Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Distribution: bionet Organization: The Ohio State University Lines: 14 Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu For many years a University of Chicago journal (Current Anthropology) has made a point of requesting public comment ("reviews") of articles that were subject to a variety of opinions. This was done with the author's approval and the article was held for two or three issues in order to allow copies to be mailed to all readers who requested them and to allow their short comments to be returned to the editors. These public replies were then published in conjunction with the original article and a summary comment by the author. This "star" treatment is not done for all articles, but I have felt this was an excellent idea. -- Duane F. Marble E-mail: dmarble@magnus.acs.osu.edu Department of Geography Telephone: (614) 292-2250 The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 Fax: (614) 292-6213 From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 23 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!uunet!mcsun!uknet!gdt!ccshf From: ccshf@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Henry Ford) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's rights Message-ID: <1992Dec24.105524.29135@gdr.bath.ac.uk> Date: 24 Dec 92 10:55:24 GMT References: <92358.192918MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK Lines: 8 I'm sure we all have stories about editors /reviewers anonymously blocking our papers and grant applications, but certainly in Britain in the ecological field this has caused sufficient problems for me to think that anonymous reviewing is bad. I am perfectly happy to make criticisms of others papers with my name attached to the review and now would not do otherwise. Henry Ford From owner-note@net.bio.net Sat Dec 26 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!gwellman From: gwellman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gregory S Wellman) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: <1992Dec27.045258.18510@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Date: 27 Dec 92 04:52:58 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 28 Dec 92 20:00:41 GMT References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 34 The Discussion so far has been in the context of the first "right" as listed in my first entry (ref.1): "1.Judgements concerning the acceptance, reviewing and publication of a paper should be concerned with the characteristics of the paper itself and not with the race, sex, creed or colour of the author." David Kristofferson (ref.2) realized some of the difficulties in reformulat- ing a paper so that the authors name was not available. Alan Baxter (ref.3) pointed out that past reputation of an author can count both positively and negatively. However, there is one example of bias which is very blatent and could be addressed. The following example will serve to make the point. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA requires prospective authors to submit papers to academy members for reviewing. The member then formally submits the paper to the journal on the author's behalf. On three occasions over the past two decades I have written to academy members in my area of expertise asking if they would handle the reviewing of my papers. On each occasion I was told that they could only submit 6 papers per year and these submission opportunities were wanted for their own papers or were "promised" to others. Thus, publication in PNAS is largely a closed shop and does not comply with the above principle 1 of a proposed charter of authors' rights. The remedy would be simply for the academy to require that members NOT submit papers from their own laboratories, or on behalf of those with whom they have a personal relationship which might lead to bias. Sincerely, Don Forsdyke Discussion Leader (1) Forsdyke, D. R. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1221, 1105 (2) Christoffersen, D. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1222, 1631 (3) Baxter, A. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1224, 750/ From owner-note@net.bio.net Sun Dec 27 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU!lazzaro From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights Message-ID: <1ho2bsINN1k8@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 28 Dec 92 23:24:44 GMT References: <92363.150041FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu In article <92363.150041FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes: > > The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA [..] > The remedy would be simply for the academy to require that members > NOT submit papers from their own laboratories, or on behalf of those with whom > they have a personal relationship which might lead to bias. > I disagree. PNAS has served well through the years as a platform for timely and often controversial science, largely due to its publication rules. If someone is deserving of membership in the National Academy, they certainly can be trusted with editorial control over 24 pages a year in a respected journal. I view it as a collective platform for the scientific viewpoints of senior science, not as a traditional journal. From owner-note@net.bio.net Tue Dec 29 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Author's Rights and Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.USA Message-ID: <92365.163145FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 30 Dec 92 21:31:45 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 68 Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:00:41 EST From: Message-ID: <92363.150041FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Author's Rights References: <92356.110515FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Regarding John Lazzaro's defence of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (ref.1): This follows from the "Charter of Authors' Rights." proposed article 1. "1.Judgements concerning the acceptance, reviewing and publication of a paper should be concerned with the characteristics of the paper itself and not with the race, sex, creed or colour of the author."(Ref.2) David Kristofferson (ref.3) expanded on this, implying that the character- istics of the author might include his/her status in the heirarchy. If this were so, I then pointed out that the authorship discrimination practiced by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences would aptly reflect the principle David was espousing. "Thus, publication in PNAS is largely a closed shop and does not comply with the above principle 1 of a proposed charter of authors' rights. The remedy would be simply for the academy to require that members NOT submit papers from their own laboratories, or on behalf of those with whom they have a personal relationship which might lead to bias". (ref.4) John Lazzaro then wrote arguing that PNAS is a special case (ref.1): "I disagree. PNAS has served well through the years as a platform for timely and often controversial science, largely due to its publication rules. If someone is deserving of membership in the National Academy, they certainly can be trusted with editorial control over 24 pages a year in a respected journal. I view it as a collective platform for the scientific viewpoints of senior science, not as a traditional journal". In response to this I would point out that there are many very distinguished people in US science who are NOT members of the Academy. How is it that some distinguished scientists are in the club, but not others? If membership of the US national academy is anything like membership of the Canadian Royal Society, then it seems likely that politics plays some role. The idea of privileged access to publication in a prestigious journal based on membership of some heirarchy seems to conflict with the proposed first article. PNAS is a collec- tive platform for the scientific viewpoints of some senior scientists, but not others. Sounds very un-American! Sincerely, Don Forsdyke (Discussion Leader) (1) Lazzaro, J. (1992) Bnt.jrnl.note 1228, 2324 (2) Forsdyke, D.R. (1992) Bnt.jrnl.note 1221, 1105 (3) Kristofferson, D. (1992) Bnt.jrnl.note 1222, 1631 (4) Forsdyke, D.R. (1992) Bnt.jrnl.note 1228, 1500 Sincerely, Don Forsdyke Discussion Leader (1) Forsdyke, D. R. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1221, 1105 (2) Christoffersen, D. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1222, 1631 (3) Baxter, A. (1992) Bionet.Journals.Note 1224, 750/ From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Dec 30 22:00:00 1992 Path: biosci!agate!boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU!lazzaro From: lazzaro@boom.CS.Berkeley.EDU (John Lazzaro) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: In defense of PNAS Message-ID: <1hvk5qINNe8e@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 31 Dec 92 20:11:38 GMT References: <92365.163145FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.cs.berkeley.edu > The idea of privileged >access to publication in a prestigious journal based on membership of some >hierarchy seems to conflict with the proposed first article. PNAS is a collec- >tive platform for the scientific viewpoints of some senior scientists, but not >others. Sounds very un-American! > Sincerely, Don Forsdyke (Discussion Leader) Then you must really hate edited books. Imagine, a publisher lets a distinguished person (just one! not every distinguished person is the entire field!) pick a group of authors based on the person's own prejudicial choice of the best science in a field (imagine that! making decisions based on personal taste!). In some cases, such a book ends up being the definitive reference for a field for many years, precisely because control is in the hands of a senior individual with a vision for a field. Scientific publications are all about documentation, communication, and inspiration -- documents exist to serve the readers, not the authors. I am arguing for diversity -- science is much better served by a plurality of "publication rules" than a single standard. Both "strong-editor" and "weak-editor" publications should be allowed to flourish, and PNAS is a specific example of a distributed "strong-editor" format. I resent making certain styles of publications "illegal" -- censorship of form is just as pernicious as censorship of content.