Something occurred to me - maybe it's a new thought or maybe one I forgot hearing elsewhere. If page charges are burdening some researchers, and the lack of compensation (monetary, prestige, etc.) for peer-reviewing is inhibiting the review process, why not link these two? Couldn't a journal keep track of its reviewers and provide them with vouchers for partial discounts on page charges or publication fees? Those without money could do a few reviews for a journal and get fees waived; those with lots of money but little time to contribute to peer review could just pay the fees to support the system. I'm sure some problems would remain (e.g., bias in who is *asked *to provide peer reviews, the journals you review for might not be the same you publish in, etc.), but it seems to me like an improvement on the current system.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Atanu Mukherjee <gatorat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me. > > "The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of good > reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then? > > "Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in > chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did you > mean by "differentially compensated", exactly? > > "Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need > reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then why > did the thread started otherwise? > > "If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you > submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review > system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant at > all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer > reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a professional by > paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want. Period. > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey < > geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote: > > > The economics are really rather different. > > > > Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in > > chronically short supply and is differentially compensated. > > > > Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need > > reviewers to get their papers published. > > > > If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you > > submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review > > system and that behavior is not professional at all. > > > > ~~~~ +/*\+ ~~~~ > > Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE > > Professor, Natural Resource Management > > Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE) > > South Dakota State University > > 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B > > Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA > > voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX) > > email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu > > http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers > > > > Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end > they > > don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge > for a > > paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the authors > > for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the > > journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers (nobody > > is interested in your subscription waiver or something like that) a > > standard money or you keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to > do > > reviews these days". When you're doing business, be professional. > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli <liccioli...@yahoo.it > > > > wrote: > > > > > Good morning, > > > in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people > > > decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the > > > Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are registered > > > on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited to do so and I > > > haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it from colleagues) - but > > > maybe it could help to actually get a credit for the reviewing work, > > > and who knows, perhaps making it more official and less prone to > > > fraud? > > > Thanks for your input. > > > Stefano > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young > > > <sl...@cornell.edu> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and > > > reminisce about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were thinking > > > similarly at that time? The same things have been said regarding > > > formula funding and IDC rates and while comparison with the past is > > > good, there needs to be a balance with what kinds of creative > > > solutions we can come up with for the future. > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of > > > >>a working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small > > > >>allotments from the university's research foundation, with > > > >>high-level graduate students doing some of the editorial work as > > > >>part of a stipend deal? > > > >> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it > > > >>seems to me like a better recipe for scientific integrity than > > > >>being a profit-center of a corporate machine. > > > >> > > > >> Your thoughts, please... > > > >> > > > >> Martin M. Meiss > > > >> > > > >> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young <sl...@cornell.edu>: > > > >> > > > >> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does > > > >> > that > > > >>get > > > >> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to > > > >>offer > > > >> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited > seminars. > > > >> > Steve > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" > > > >> > <jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do > > > >> > >reviews > > > >>these > > > >> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to > > > >> > >keep looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do > > > >> > >reviews > > > >>don't > > > >> > >recommend another potential reviewer. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 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- > > > >>revi > > > >> > >>>ew/ > > > >> > >>> < > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer- > > > >>revi > > > >> > >>>ew/> > > > >> > >>> 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-journ > > > >> > >>> >> als/ > > > >> > >>> >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> -- > > > >> > >> 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. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* > > *Columbus Ohio 43220* > > *352-870-1228* > > > > > > -- > > *Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* > *Columbus Ohio 43220* > *352-870-1228* > -- Bradley Evan Carlson Assistant Professor of Biology Wabash College, Crawfordsville IN Email: *carls...@wabash.edu* <+carls...@wabash.edu> Website: https://sites.google.com/site/bradleyecarlson/home
