|
] From: Dr Audrey Geffen <[log in to unmask]> writes:
]From the comments I get from reviewers, I think that much of the
]delay, and unwillingness to review comes from increased
]sloppiness on the part of authors. Common complaints are: 1)
]resubmission of manuscripts from one journal to another without
]substantial changes. 2) Lack of attention to grammer,
]proof-reading etc. 3) Simultaneous submissions to different
]journals of the same material, 4) just plain poor writing.
And my question is: WHY is such a poor material being sent to
reviewers by the editors ?.
Sending over a bad MS to a referee implies a waste of everyone's
time & money as well as the aforementioned delays.
And, please, don't tell me scientific publishers do a fine job:
They will take beteween six month and a year (there are cases
whuch took up to 4 years!) to set up proofs which newspaper staff
do over night ... or do you believe that making a scientific
journal is, graphically speaking, more complicated than setting
up anyone daily newspaper ?. Well, it is not.
One of the main problems with publishing companies (scientific
press) is that it is an oligopoly: There is little competition
and they can do whatever they wish. Many publish obsolete
material due to delays. That's why, during the 70's, the field
of physics set up their own ftp sites for abstracts (of
unpublished material) and that's why most scientific publishers
are now going over to the web: The conventional paper press is a
phenomenon from the middle ages and it cannot keep up no longer.
And due to funding reasons et al. we all are stuck in this slow
system.
Just a few thoughts.
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"
|
