[Coral-List] Peer review in science

[Michael Arvedlund]

and if you dare to critize a "hot shot" professor, when you are 
a referee on the professors manuscript, I can assure you that some
journals will then harass you in any possible way for a very long
time......

why double blindness is not standard in many journals is a mystery to
me......but if that was the case the professors would perhaps not get
half as
much accepted for publication as they do right now.....

and with these lines I run the risk of being blacklisted by a bunch of
(far too) powerful professors......

Cheers, Mike Arvedlund 


 




> Thank you for sharing your experience. I think we all know that the
> peer-review process is often too time-consuming, harsh, and
> unrealistic. I have found it very interesting that most journals do
> not usually accept articles that have no conclusive findings, and they
> never accept articles where the author(s) could not find any
> statistical significant differences between or among factors. I
> thought that science was not only the sharing of knowledge, but a
> building block for future science? Some journals go as far as only
> publishing "glamour" , trendy, or popular science type articles. The
> whole publishing "system" has been very disappointing. Instead of
> worrying about how an author did or did not organize their findings in
> the way the reviewer prefers they should really concentrate on whether
> any ethical standards were violated. I once read a great article about
> the ethical standards of publishing and I always follow the standards
> for first, second, and third authorship. I personally know many folks
> that have been second and third author on an article and all they did
> was review the article. This approach does not meet the ethical
> standards. Lastly, I prefer submitting to journals that use the double-
> blind approach, because some reviewers look at the name of the
> author(s) and either go to easy or to hard on their reviews based on
> the name. I could go rant some more, but  I think we are all aware of
> these issues.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended
> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any
> views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author. If you are
> not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must
> take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to
> anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received
> this email in error.
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: John Bruno <jbruno at unc.edu> To: coral-list at coral">coral-
> > list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:14 AM
> > Subject: [Coral-List] Peer review in coral reef science
> >
> >
> >Hey coral reefers,
> >
> >Ever wonder what other peoples reviews look like?  Want to peek
> >behind the veil of secrecy shrouding peer-review in science?  Come on
> >over to SeaMonster where I just posted typical reviews from our
> >field's top journals:
> >
> >http://theseamonster.net/2013/05/are-unreasonably-harsh-reviewers-retarding-the-pace-of-coral-reef-science/
> >
> >Trailer:  "I think the paper is crap"   "There is no there, there"
> >
> >Enjoy! And share you experiences here or there.
> >
> >JB
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral">Coral-
> >List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list Coral-List at coral">Coral-
> List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list