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 <emen...@archbold-station.org> 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 [ > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [ > mellor.da...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > 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-peer-review/ > < > http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/> > 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 <mme...@gmail.com> 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 <ino...@umd.edu>: > > > >> 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-to- > >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ > >> > -- 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.
