 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
|
News & Events:
|
Posted by Scott Thomson on February 26, 2002 at 19:31:07:
In Reply to: Papers, etc posted by Raymond Hoser on February 26, 2002 at 17:52:23:
Ray,
I do think that your putting your taxonomic papers up on the net is a good thing, it does give a wider access to them. I am only referring to where they are published originally. I am sorry but cannot agree that the more widely distributed popular journals are a better place to put them. The level of review is inadequate. If this slows them down then that is unfortunate (check the submission, review and publication dates of my C. burrungandjii paper). Taxonomic papers must be error free.
I agree that the "in house" publications of museums are not good as with the "edited volume". I would not publish a new species there either, nor in a book.
As you point out you can by using the internet increase the distribution of the paper after it has been published, negating the negative effect of subscription rates in the higher quality journals. Hence I would not call this a valid argument for publishing elsewhere.
The most important thing for a taxonomic paper is to obtain a good quality peer review. I do not believe journals such as monitor can do this (in fact I know they can't) nor do I believe that most of the museum journals can (having been through the process). There are more than the four journals I mentioned available, they were examples.
I recently had to argue heavily to be allowed to cite Cann's papers as an International Journal refused to acknowledge them as published. They gave me the ultimatum of removing John's papers from my Literature List or they would not publish the paper. I won the argument in the end but I can only see this happening more, not less.
Cheers, Scott
