Geoff asked that we chime in with our reactions to the strange, bad paper, and a few have done so. However, I am prompted to comment by Paulo's post:<br><br>Paulo wrote: <br>"But couldnīt we, as members of the International Polychaetology
Association, devise strategies to avoid this kind of bad work and maybe
to help our colleagues? If not for science itself, at least only to
mitigate (alleviate, unburden?) their linguistic restraints?"<br><br>I have great admiration for those of you who write papers in English when it is not your native language. I certainly could not ~ I even had to have help with the Spanish abstract for my paper in the Madrid IPC Proceedings. There is a wide range of expertise among polychaetologists and some of you could even help others as much as a native English speaker could. (Paulo, your English is excellent.)<br>
<br>As a reviewer and, in recent years, editor, I have seen perhaps 150 manuscripts, maybe 90% of which were written by non-native English speakers. In some cases, I am certain that the presentation would have been greatly improved if the writer's own major professor had taken the time to correct the paper before it was submitted. (Sometimes that professor's name has been on the manuscript!) In other cases, well-meaning reviewers have introduced new grammatical errors or offered conflicting editorial advice, and the editor's work becomes complicated trying to explain what parts of the advice to accept and what to ignore. <br>
<br>Years ago, many journals employed copy-editors who would take care of
all the details of grammar, punctuation, and formatting, as well as fact-checking to be sure that references were complete, museum numbers were inserted, etc. Today,
most journals, including Zootaxa, do not: the (volunteer) subject editors are responsible for all of that.<br><br>Many
colleagues are generous with their time, but others are over-committed
and cannot help at all, so sometimes the most appropriate technical
reviewer is simply not available. <br><br>One step to devising the strategy that Paulo requests would be to update the list of Polychaete Researchers and their areas of expertise. There are many new people in the field since the last version of that list, not to mention that there are also new fields of endeavor (e.g., molecular systematics).<br>
<br>Who are you, what are your credentials, what is your area of expertise, what are you willing to review (and how often) ... I'd like to know! And we could send that list to Editors of journals such as the one under fire at the moment.<br>
<br><br>Nancy<br><br><br>PS. Anyone wondering how the IPC 9 Proceedings are coming should read this message carefully!<br>
Send comments to us at
archive@iubio.bio.indiana.edu
