to the Referrees discussions

There does seem to be a problem with too many papers (re: R G Dudley).
However, I dno't necessarily agree that splitting papers is the problem.
It is the problem if the papers were split in order to increase a
publication list.  Splitting papers can also be very useful.  A manuscript
I have on the effects of the EXXON Valdez oil spill on eelgrass is, to my
way of thinking, a separate paper than the descriptive manuscript on
general conditions within eelgrass beds in the Sound.  The two are for
distinct audiences.

The problem, at least to me, is the publication of papers whtiout
significance, whether they should be part of a larger paper, or whether
they stand alone.  Examples are papers without a sound thesis (no
direction), those with no replication, and those with no conclusion.

Fager suggested some years ago that there should be a separate category of
journals for data papers.  Using the internet may be the solution to what
he saw, and we are in need of.  Repositories for data would be available,
and the publications would be for science.

It is obvious that researchers are presently judged by their pub list..
That seems to be a problem for all of us, not just the jornal editors.
Data reports in therepositories could then be used as a category in CVs

Regards, Howard Teas