While this may be true in Malcolm's case (I assume that this is a journal in
herpetology), the situation varies between subfields and very much depends
on the editor. I never had problems with well-edited journals (the best ever
was the Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada under Cam
Stevenson, who should be the model for editors everywhere). The choice of
reviewer is an important editorial decision, but the number of cases where
people are sent papers that they are not qualified to review indicates that
frequently the reviewers are picked from a hat without really understanding
how well the paper and the reviewer match up.
For example, I came to realise that some editors were sending me papers to
reject. If they got a paper full of suspicious math that might confuse most
ecologists they would send it to someone with sufficient mathematical
background to pick it apart, even if they were not conversant with the
subject of the paper. Since most highly mathematical papers in ecology are
based on elegant but irrelevant assumptions, the challenge is to find
someone who can spot the errors (if you look into one of the better volumes
on theoretical ecology, such as Bob May's book, you will note that even the
most sophisticated models tend to be pretty simple). My point is that the
editor reads the paper, identifies the parts that need evaluation, and sends
it to someone with competence in that area - he doesn't just pick someone
whose CV overlaps with the title.
Some fields are much more prone to conflict than others. When there is a lot
of funding at stake, things can get nasty. HAB research (harmful algal
blooms) can get pretty tense, and during the Physteria hysteria the
situation was terrible. Theoretical ecology suffers both because of the lack
of clear methodological guidelines for reviewers to apply, and because of
the belief of many ecologists, including editors, that reworking published
data is a contemptible form of scavenging and does not merit publication. In
some fields (e.g.,physics) the analysis of data is considered as important
as their collection, and theoretical physicists who have never made a
measurement in their lives have received Nobel prizes and other honours, but
not in ecology, and thus editors can be very callous abut the quality of
reviews in this field (of course the handful of journals that specialise in
theoretical ecology contains some exceptions).
So Malcolm may not have to worry about his reviewers, but many of us do.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: terça-feira, 2 de Março de 2010 23:00
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
As an editor of a journal I have been surprised to find only a single time
in five years that a review was possibly unfair,
and that one was unfairly positive. It has been refreshing to find that
most people review manuscripts objectively despite
personal disgruntlements with individuals or disagreements with selected
methodology. They tend to be fair.
Occasionally, a reviewer is unnecessarily insulting or gruff.....I
personally believe this is uncalled for.
People worry too much about reviewers.
Malcolm
