|
For over a year ago, there was a debate in FISH-ECOLOGY about
timely publications. I understand, from a few editors, this
issue is getting worse as time passes and the conventional
publishing system seems to be useless:
- Editors cannot get referees to review papers;
- Referees return, after several months, papers without having
reviewd the material ('sorry, didn't have time');
- Budget cuts shrink time & will of referees (generally senior
scientists);
- Senior scientists cannot afford working for free;
- Senior scientists _will not_ work for free;
- Papers are delayed for years;
- Papers/contents may be obsolete when published;
- Publishers take over a year to set a what newspaper stuff do
over a few night-hours;
- This system to publish scientific knowledge does not seem any
longer to keep up with today's world.
These delay mechanisms imply:
- Time lost;
- Funds lost;
- Science at 'stand-by' stadium;
Perhaps, a debate with editors in this forum may lead to a
positive development.
I would suggest to editors to _correct_ this issue and implement
unconventional ways to solve this groove problem: Junior
scientists (even graduated students!) could review the majority
of _descriptive_ papers. Why dont you recruit graduated students
and new phd's ?. Or do editors _believe_ that all responsibility
of science may be thrown onto the shoulders of senior scientists
?.
- Does any one have any unconventional suggestions here ?
Cheers,
APS
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Aldo-Pier Solari, Fish. Res. Gr., ULP <[log in to unmask]>
home-page --> http://segate.sunet.se/fish-ecology/aps/index.html
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"I will not fail those with whom I serve"
|
