Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
Dear ecologgers, Yes, there is a referee crisis in Ecology and it has multiple causes, including those already pointed out in this thread. I would emphasize four: intensive specialization of research topics, no time for reviewing due to overwork, no appreciation of reviewing activities for career progression, and no rewards for reviewers. The third and fourth causes play special roles. Reviewing is altruistic work, and it is really unfair that commercial academic publishers do not reward it, but instead make huge profits by charging unbelievable prices for papers that are based on research carried out by authors, funded mainly by the government (i.e. tax payers), and reviewed for free by colleagues. In most cases, reviewers do not even have direct access to the papers they help improve. Furthermore, when it comes to getting tenure or long-term funding, your experience as a reviewer does not count. Nowadays, what incentives are there to do review? People work by incentive (financial, personal, social, spiritual, etc.), and scientists are people too. Cheers, Marco Mello
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
David has brought up some good points and questions about Peerage of Science, and the attempt to fix some of the obvious problems with the current peer-review system. Below are some responses to paraphrased versions of David's questions [in brackets] and further thoughts, jointly written by Janne-Tuomas Seppänen (PoS founder) and me. "[Wouldn't editors still send a submitted ms out for review anyway]?" -- The idea of Peerage of Science is that authors eventually would no longer need to "submit" anywhere. Instead they *send* (emphasizing this word to distinguish from "submit") manuscripts to be peer reviewed at PoS, and journals with access to the system can proactively send publishing offers, if and when a peer review process indicates a manuscript meets their standards. In their offer to publish, editors can specify that the offer is conditional on another "in-house" peer review, if they wish. But that is extra work, and a journal that trusts Peerage of Science enough to participate probably would not see a need to do that. An editor of a non-participating journal receiving a manuscript with "exported" peer review reports is another situation. Since PoS is still such a new endeavour, many editors probably will opt to organize an additional "in-house" peer review. We trust that they will soon realize that the reliability and quality of reviews from Peerage of Science is at least as good as, and probably better than, the reviews they get after significant delay and toil through the traditional system, and start to accept the Peerage of Science reviews due to the improved efficiency of decision-making. "[Wouldn't this attract biased reviewers who see themselves as gatekeepers]?" -- Reviewers with strong unjustified point of view, unqualified comments, and nasty wording are common enough in the traditional system. The peer-review-of-peer-review keeps these in check in Peerage of Science, because unjustified comments lead to lower scores. The system seeks to have the best of both anonymity and openness: you have the security of anonymity, but suffer from doing malicious things personally (your performance score takes a hit), and you have incentive to openly publish your peer-reviewed review report once the process is complete. In the traditional system, the worst consequence you can suffer from abusing anonymity is that the journal never requests your reviews again. "[What prevents the system from being gamed]?" -- Gaming is not impossible, but takes some effort and is very risky relative to payoff. You are not allowed to access manuscripts authored by affiliated scientists (from someone in your institution, or your recent co-authors). A pattern of reciprocal altruism with a co-conspirator would be evident in the system logs, and scientific misconduct leads to life-long ban from the service. If necessary, the system will feature a "report abuse" button for reviewers spotting a purposefully biased (be it positive or negative) review, launching an investigation. You can invite imaginary people, but they will not get peer status (i.e. a right to access manuscripts) because this is granted only after service administration has verified identity and qualifications. Naturally, such a "prank" would be clearly identified in the system logs. "[What prevents ideas from getting stolen and scooped]?" -- Peerage of Science actually mitigates the possibility of ideas or papers getting stolen, this is discussed in the service FAQ. We hope this helps clarify a few of the excellent points David raised. Answering these questions is very important - as it illustrates some of the advantages of PoS over the current (and more flawed) traditional peer-review system, which is more subject to many of the maladies mentioned above. Sincerely, Joe Nocera and Janne-Tuomas Seppänen (Member of Board of Governors and Founder of Peerage of Science, respectively) Peerage of Science http://www.peerageofscience.org - Original Message - From: David C Duffy Date: Monday, January 9, 2012 9:22 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > The concept of the Peerage of Science is an interesting one and > potentially quite useful but I have a few concerns, perhaps > because I don't understand the system. > > Wouldn't editors still send a submitted ms out for review, to > reviewers they personally know are competent, know the subject, > and are unbiased (although editors have also been known to send > mss to a biased or 'pitbull' reviewer to see what their best > shot at the ms is). Wouldn't this actually add a layer to the > publication process and stretch good reviewers even thinner? > > Wouldn't such a system attract reviewer
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew. Many researchers seem so rushed to get their manuscript out that it is sent with a poor quality of language, poor focus, and often many errors in presentation. This certainly does not aid their cause, and I have refused to review several manuscripts that were evidently not well-prepared, and not ready to be reviewed. And many times a senior author seems to have not reviewed the manuscript thoroughly before it was sent. I finally refused to renew an associate editor position because I spent so much time (and reviewers spent even more time) on low quality manuscripts. Of course, once through the review process, the manuscript is considerably improved, at the expense of the reviewers' time, rather than the author or co-authors. Perhaps associate editors and editors have to be much more strict about quality before submitting to reviewers. However, this means an extra load on the editor. But Andrew is right on, there needs to be much better mentoring before submission (onus on the student's research director). We are evaluating dossiers on quantity most often, so it's a difficult fix. Alison Munson Professeure, Forest Ecology Center for Forest Studies Faculte de foresterie, de geographie et de geomatique Universite Laval Quebec
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
I would suggest part of the problem with a referee crisis or lack of review quality is the poor quality and unnecessary quantity of many of the manuscripts. It may be good to split a study into 3 publications for administrators counting widgets, but it's quite annoying for a fellow researcher trying to figure out what somebody did, and most likely only one of the publications will be cited (and count towards the author's citation index). And it triples the demand on reviewers (or more: when a paper is recommended for rejection because the results have essentially already been published, many authors simply start fresh with another journal and batch of reviewers who might accept it). Better editing by mentors of junior author's manuscripts would go a long way towards improving reviews. When we have to spend most of our review efforts trying to figure out what the scientist did, or what they mean by something, or whether there's a logical structure or point to a paragraph, it reduces our ability to evaluate the science. If a junior author is tired of working on a manuscript and thinks it's "good enough" to go out for review, invariably they are wrong. They need a colleague or friend (and ideally a co-author) to read it through for clarity, let it sit for a week, and come back to it for another edit. I don't think it's the reviewer's job to teach authors how to write well. I'm not sure there are ready solutions for these problems, or how widely they are perceived as such. Andrew Gray Corvallis, OR From: Joe Nocera [nocer...@queensu.ca] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 12:19 PM Subject: Re: Is there a referee crisis in ecology? David's message rings clear, but I am happy to report that he is incorrect on one matter. We DO have a system that measures and rewards reviewing. A recent initiative, called Peerage of Science, has instituted a system that (among other things) provides quantitative ratings of review quality. I encourage you to read the details about this bold new endeavour at: http://www.peerageofscience.org/ I hope the information there can convince many of you to join, or at least breathe easier that attempts are being made to divert an (aptly described) referee crisis. In reference to the issue at hand, that of quantifying referee effort, the PoS system works along the following lines: 1. A manuscript is submitted to PoS for review 2. Members are alerted to the ms, and can sign up to review it 3. After the manuscript's first submission is reviewed, the reviewers are then allowed to see each other's reviews (all anonymous) 4. The reviews are then scored by the other reviewers 5. The manuscript continues on in the process... Each reviewer then accumulates an average "review quality" score over time. Poor reviews are justifiably penalized with low scores. Excellent reviews accrue good scores. I am sure that the benefits here are obvious, and perhaps so are a few drawbacks. But, it is the first attempt of which I am aware that is trying to create a currency amongst reviewers that is not just an extra bullet on a performance review or CV. Check it out. Chris, as originator of this thread, I especially think you would be interested in this. Sincerely, Joe Nocera (Member of the Board of Governers for Peerage of Science) - Original Message - From: David C Duffy Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there > in hopes someone will run with it. I believe being asked to > referee indicates one's standing in a field. Journals will > always try to get the best referees possible. We simply don't > have a way to measure or reward reviewing. > > > For authors we have a measure of impact (actually several, > see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index for a quick start). I > would suggest something similar for referees. Journals would > produce an annual list of reviewers and the number of time each > reviewed. The sum of the number of reviews by a referee times > the impact factor of the journals they review in should give a > pretty good index of their standing in their field. Reviewing in > Science would be rare but earn a high score but more frequent > reviewing in high ranked but more focused journals would really > drive scores. Reviewing in low ranked journals would not help > one's score much but as at present would be done more as moral > obligation than for one's career. > > > Further indices could correct for time and frequency of reviews, > or look at mean rank, much as the H-index spawned a wave of > refinements. > > Once each of us has a number (or various), there
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
The concept of the Peerage of Science is an interesting one and potentially quite useful but I have a few concerns, perhaps because I don't understand the system. Wouldn't editors still send a submitted ms out for review, to reviewers they personally know are competent, know the subject, and are unbiased (although editors have also been known to send mss to a biased or 'pitbull' reviewer to see what their best shot at the ms is). Wouldn't this actually add a layer to the publication process and stretch good reviewers even thinner? Wouldn't such a system attract reviewers who have their own strong point of view and see themselves as gatekeepers for particular subjects? Climate change deniers could infiltrate and wreck havoc with reviews of climate change mss. Also would it constrain those who know little or nothing about a subject from reviewing? As we know anonymity brings out the worst of people on the internet; there would be little to constrain them. Get reviewed by a few nasty people and authors will simply stop sending mss even if those reviewers got low scores. If the system is fully automatic, what keeps it from being gamed? I'll do a nice review for you if you do one for me--remember it's anonymous so we can't detect conflicts of interest. Similarly what is to keep a prankster from signing up a dozen or so of his imaginary colleagues to help review his papers? Or, on the other hand, what is to keep ideas or whole papers from going walkabout, from an anonymous author to one who publishes first? Reviewers could self police but Quis custodiet upsos custodes? With my present state of knowledge, the Peerage appears as if would serve most effectively as a discussion group, an extended network of colleagues, an extension of the many smaller informal networks that do the same thing at present. We would submit a paper to get feedback to improve it, but as you mention, editors could solicit the mss they see as interesting for consideration in their journals. This would essentially be a continuous scientific meeting, held on the Internet. Of course it is easy to see problems, some things I have brought up may be minor, so it's worth a try. Cheers, David David Cameron Duffy Ph.D. Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ - Original Message - From: Joe Nocera Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > David's message rings clear, but I am happy to report that he is > incorrect on one matter. We DO have a system that measures > and rewards reviewing. A recent initiative, called Peerage > of Science, has instituted a system that (among other things) > provides quantitative ratings of review quality. > > I encourage you to read the details about this bold new > endeavour at: http://www.peerageofscience.org/ > I hope the information there can convince many of you to join, > or at least breathe easier that attempts are being made to > divert an (aptly described) referee crisis. > > In reference to the issue at hand, that of quantifying referee > effort, the PoS system works along the following lines: > 1. A manuscript is submitted to PoS for review > 2. Members are alerted to the ms, and can sign up to review it > 3. After the manuscript's first submission is reviewed, the > reviewers are then allowed to see each other's reviews (all anonymous) > 4. The reviews are then scored by the other reviewers > 5. The manuscript continues on in the process... > > Each reviewer then accumulates an average "review quality" score > over time. Poor reviews are justifiably penalized with low > scores. Excellent reviews accrue good scores. > > I am sure that the benefits here are obvious, and perhaps so are > a few drawbacks. But, it is the first attempt of which I > am aware that is trying to create a currency amongst reviewers > that is not just an extra bullet on a performance review or CV. > > Check it out. Chris, as originator of this thread, I > especially think you would be interested in this. > > Sincerely, > Joe Nocera > > (Member of the Board of Governers for Peerage of Science) > > > > - Original Message - > From: David C Duffy > Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 2:56 pm > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there > > in hopes someone will run with it. I believe being asked to > > refer
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
David's message rings clear, but I am happy to report that he is incorrect on one matter. We DO have a system that measures and rewards reviewing. A recent initiative, called Peerage of Science, has instituted a system that (among other things) provides quantitative ratings of review quality. I encourage you to read the details about this bold new endeavour at: http://www.peerageofscience.org/ I hope the information there can convince many of you to join, or at least breathe easier that attempts are being made to divert an (aptly described) referee crisis. In reference to the issue at hand, that of quantifying referee effort, the PoS system works along the following lines: 1. A manuscript is submitted to PoS for review 2. Members are alerted to the ms, and can sign up to review it 3. After the manuscript's first submission is reviewed, the reviewers are then allowed to see each other's reviews (all anonymous) 4. The reviews are then scored by the other reviewers 5. The manuscript continues on in the process... Each reviewer then accumulates an average "review quality" score over time. Poor reviews are justifiably penalized with low scores. Excellent reviews accrue good scores. I am sure that the benefits here are obvious, and perhaps so are a few drawbacks. But, it is the first attempt of which I am aware that is trying to create a currency amongst reviewers that is not just an extra bullet on a performance review or CV. Check it out. Chris, as originator of this thread, I especially think you would be interested in this. Sincerely, Joe Nocera (Member of the Board of Governers for Peerage of Science) - Original Message - From: David C Duffy Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there > in hopes someone will run with it. I believe being asked to > referee indicates one's standing in a field. Journals will > always try to get the best referees possible. We simply don't > have a way to measure or reward reviewing. > > > For authors we have a measure of impact (actually several, > see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index for a quick start). I > would suggest something similar for referees. Journals would > produce an annual list of reviewers and the number of time each > reviewed. The sum of the number of reviews by a referee times > the impact factor of the journals they review in should give a > pretty good index of their standing in their field. Reviewing in > Science would be rare but earn a high score but more frequent > reviewing in high ranked but more focused journals would really > drive scores. Reviewing in low ranked journals would not help > one's score much but as at present would be done more as moral > obligation than for one's career. > > > Further indices could correct for time and frequency of reviews, > or look at mean rank, much as the H-index spawned a wave of > refinements. > > Once each of us has a number (or various), there will be a > natural inclination to want to improve one's standing (which can > be done by more reviewing or by being asked to review by higher > impact journals). Administrators, obsessed with the quantitative > will latch onto this like flies onto roadkill for evaluating. > The bottom line would be a competition for opportunities to > review rather than a competition among editors for a limited > number of reviewers. We would measure those who give back, not > just those who publish. > > > Of course this could be gamed, but the best defense would be > editors who don't count reviews unless they reach a certain > standard of excellence. Of course if editors were too picky, we > wouldn't bother to review for that particular journal. > > > We can continue to bemoan the state of reviewing, and dream up > sticks with which to beat reviewers into helping, or we can come > up with carrots. This carrot is cheap and appeals to both our > better and worse angels. > > > Anyway, I'd appreciate thoughts on it. If it goes anywhere, I > hope someone will call it the D-Index. > > > Cheers, > > > David Duffy > > > > > > > Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director > PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany > University of Hawaii Manoa > 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 > Honolulu, HI 96822 USA > Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 > http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ > > > > > - Original Message - > From: malcolm McCallum > Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 4:49 am > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
What you are leaving out is the quality of the reviews. Just as with papers, some reviews are of much higher quality than others. Perhaps there should also be included in the index how many times the editors had to send reminders to the reviewer - before all the on-line journal review systems were up, this was a major pain in the neck. > I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there in hopes > someone will run with it. I believe being asked to referee indicates one's > standing in a field. Journals will always try to get the best referees > possible. We simply don't have a way to measure or reward reviewing. > > > For authors we have a measure of impact (actually several, > see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index for a quick start). I would > suggest something similar for referees. Journals would produce an annual > list of reviewers and the number of time each reviewed. The sum of the > number of reviews by a referee times the impact factor of the journals > they review in should give a pretty good index of their standing in their > field. Reviewing in Science would be rare but earn a high score but more > frequent reviewing in high ranked but more focused journals would really > drive scores. Reviewing in low ranked journals would not help one's score > much but as at present would be done more as moral obligation than for > one's career. > > > Further indices could correct for time and frequency of reviews, or look > at mean rank, much as the H-index spawned a wave of refinements. > > > Once each of us has a number (or various), there will be a natural > inclination to want to improve one's standing (which can be done by more > reviewing or by being asked to review by higher impact journals). > Administrators, obsessed with the quantitative will latch onto this like > flies onto roadkill for evaluating. The bottom line would be a competition > for opportunities to review rather than a competition among editors for a > limited number of reviewers. We would measure those who give back, not > just those who publish. > > > Of course this could be gamed, but the best defense would be editors who > don't count reviews unless they reach a certain standard of excellence. Of > course if editors were too picky, we wouldn't bother to review for that > particular journal. > > > We can continue to bemoan the state of reviewing, and dream up sticks with > which to beat reviewers into helping, or we can come up with carrots. This > carrot is cheap and appeals to both our better and worse angels. > > > Anyway, I'd appreciate thoughts on it. If it goes anywhere, I hope someone > will call it the D-Index. > > > Cheers, > > > David Duffy > > > > > > > Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director > PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany > University of Hawaii Manoa > 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 > Honolulu, HI 96822 USA > Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 > http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ > > > > > - Original Message - > From: malcolm McCallum > Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 4:49 am > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > >> Recent joint editorial from all herp societies published in >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology. >> >> The "peer" in Peer Review. >> http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_6/Issue_3/Joint_editorial_2011.pdf >> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Lortie >> wrote: >> > Dear Ecologgers, >> > >> > Thank you so much for your feedback on the editorial 'Money >> for nothing and referees for free' >> > published in Ideas in Ecology and Evolution in December >> > (http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/index). The most >> compelling and common question >> > I was asked was is there a referee crisis in ecology (or >> tragedy of the 'reviewers common' as >> > Hochberg et al. proposed). This is an excellent question. I >> propose that whilst there are more >> > perfect ways to test this (total up number of submissions and >> then estimate total pool of referees, >> > tricky), an interesting indicator would instead to be >> calculate the decline to review rate (d2rr) in >> > ecology. I envision the following two primary data streams >> to calculate this rate: a per capita >> > estimate derived from each of us personally and a mean >> estimate of rate from the publishing >> > portals (journals). Hence, let's do it. Only you know your >> decline to (accept doing a) review rate >> > ac
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there in hopes someone will run with it. I believe being asked to referee indicates one's standing in a field. Journals will always try to get the best referees possible. We simply don't have a way to measure or reward reviewing. For authors we have a measure of impact (actually several, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index for a quick start). I would suggest something similar for referees. Journals would produce an annual list of reviewers and the number of time each reviewed. The sum of the number of reviews by a referee times the impact factor of the journals they review in should give a pretty good index of their standing in their field. Reviewing in Science would be rare but earn a high score but more frequent reviewing in high ranked but more focused journals would really drive scores. Reviewing in low ranked journals would not help one's score much but as at present would be done more as moral obligation than for one's career. Further indices could correct for time and frequency of reviews, or look at mean rank, much as the H-index spawned a wave of refinements. Once each of us has a number (or various), there will be a natural inclination to want to improve one's standing (which can be done by more reviewing or by being asked to review by higher impact journals). Administrators, obsessed with the quantitative will latch onto this like flies onto roadkill for evaluating. The bottom line would be a competition for opportunities to review rather than a competition among editors for a limited number of reviewers. We would measure those who give back, not just those who publish. Of course this could be gamed, but the best defense would be editors who don't count reviews unless they reach a certain standard of excellence. Of course if editors were too picky, we wouldn't bother to review for that particular journal. We can continue to bemoan the state of reviewing, and dream up sticks with which to beat reviewers into helping, or we can come up with carrots. This carrot is cheap and appeals to both our better and worse angels. Anyway, I'd appreciate thoughts on it. If it goes anywhere, I hope someone will call it the D-Index. Cheers, David Duffy Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 4:49 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Recent joint editorial from all herp societies published in > Herpetological Conservation and Biology. > > The "peer" in Peer Review. > http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_6/Issue_3/Joint_editorial_2011.pdf > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Lortie > wrote: > > Dear Ecologgers, > > > > Thank you so much for your feedback on the editorial 'Money > for nothing and referees for free' > > published in Ideas in Ecology and Evolution in December > > (http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/index). The most > compelling and common question > > I was asked was is there a referee crisis in ecology (or > tragedy of the 'reviewers common' as > > Hochberg et al. proposed). This is an excellent question. I > propose that whilst there are more > > perfect ways to test this (total up number of submissions and > then estimate total pool of referees, > > tricky), an interesting indicator would instead to be > calculate the decline to review rate (d2rr) in > > ecology. I envision the following two primary data streams > to calculate this rate: a per capita > > estimate derived from each of us personally and a mean > estimate of rate from the publishing > > portals (journals). Hence, let's do it. Only you know your > decline to (accept doing a) review rate > > across all requests whilst journals track their own net rates > and your specific rate with them too. > > > > So, please take 30 seconds and fill in this short survey, and > we can then assess, to an extent, > > whether there is a referee crisis in ecology. > > > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VD3K36W > > > > I have also compiled a long list of emails for every editor I > could find for all ecology journals and > > have contacted them to see if they would share the rate at > which individuals decline for each of > > them, i.e. do they have to ask 5 or 6 people to even secure > two reviews? I will not share the journal > > names etc. and protect their rates as I recognize the > i
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
Recent joint editorial from all herp societies published in Herpetological Conservation and Biology. The "peer" in Peer Review. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_6/Issue_3/Joint_editorial_2011.pdf On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Lortie wrote: > Dear Ecologgers, > > Thank you so much for your feedback on the editorial 'Money for nothing and > referees for free' > published in Ideas in Ecology and Evolution in December > (http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/index). The most compelling and > common question > I was asked was is there a referee crisis in ecology (or tragedy of the > 'reviewers common' as > Hochberg et al. proposed). This is an excellent question. I propose that > whilst there are more > perfect ways to test this (total up number of submissions and then estimate > total pool of referees, > tricky), an interesting indicator would instead to be calculate the decline > to review rate (d2rr) in > ecology. I envision the following two primary data streams to calculate > this rate: a per capita > estimate derived from each of us personally and a mean estimate of rate from > the publishing > portals (journals). Hence, let's do it. Only you know your decline to > (accept doing a) review rate > across all requests whilst journals track their own net rates and your > specific rate with them too. > > So, please take 30 seconds and fill in this short survey, and we can then > assess, to an extent, > whether there is a referee crisis in ecology. > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VD3K36W > > I have also compiled a long list of emails for every editor I could find for > all ecology journals and > have contacted them to see if they would share the rate at which individuals > decline for each of > them, i.e. do they have to ask 5 or 6 people to even secure two reviews? I > will not share the journal > names etc. and protect their rates as I recognize the implications. I would > just like to know what > our overall mean is from a journal perspective too. > > Thanks so much for your time and help with these discussions. I hope you > think they are > important too, but I also want to assure you that this is my penultimate post > on the subject. > Warm regards, > Christopher Lortie. > lor...@yorku.ca > www.onepoint.ca -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "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.
