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"