LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for FISH-SCI Archives

FISH-SCI Archives

FISH-SCI Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave FISH-SCI
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Re: Issue: Referees & Timely publications ...


Steve Branstetter <[log in to unmask]>


[log in to unmask]


Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:12:09 -0700





text/plain (1 lines)

Thomas Mehner wrote:
> > Many authors send their first drafts of
> >manuscripts to colleagues and ask for first criticisms and suggestions
> >(before submitting the ms to any journal). If these colleagues will write a
> >formal 'referees report', these reports and the answers of the authors could
> >be sent to the journal's editors together with the manuscripts.

and Dr P Almada Villela responded:
> One potential problem with following this process would be that often
> those versions reviewed by colleagues prior to submission to a journal
> are at much earlier stages than the final ms.
> Patricia Almada-Villela

It has been my experience that many manuscripts _appear_ to be submitted
to journal editors prematurely. I have received manuscripts for review
that are so wordy or disorganized that the content is hard to evaluate.
Making editorial suggestions isn't the responsibility of the peer
reviewer (see Brown, R. W. 1995. Conducting an effective manuscript
review -- Fisheries 20(7):40-41 for an excellent summary).

Although some may due it, apparently many editors don't give a
manuscript a "once-over" before sending it out for critical review. If
that were done, the ms could be promptly returned to the author for
correction. Yes, it would be time-consuming, but by forwarding the
manuscript on to reviewers, there is shipping time, dead time on the
reviewers desk, return time, and dead/processing time by the editor
before the author finds out that their manuscript "stinks". In these
cases, the ms must back out for re-review when it's resubmitted, thus
doubling workloads on editors and reviewers, and doubling publication

Yes, many reviewers do not promptly return ms's. But not all the fault
lies at this one step. Thus, I'm not sure there is a one-step fix.
Steve Branstetter, Ph.D., Program Director
Gulf & S. Atl. Fish. Develop. Fndn.
Ste. 997, Lincoln Cntr., 5401 W. Kennedy
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone 813-286-8390 FAX 813-286-8261
email: [log in to unmask]

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main FISH-SCI Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager