Re: Peer Review? - or censorship?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]

Posted by Scott Thomson on February 27, 2002 at 03:35:06:

In Reply to: Peer Review? - or censorship? posted by Raymond Hoser on February 27, 2002 at 02:34:25:

Hi,

: Scott you hit the nail on the head with one of your comments -
: "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."

Yes I would have to agree that by doing this the journal bordered on cencorship, this was wrong and that is pretty much how I won the argument.

In there defence I can see their point of view they were afraid that by allowing a citation of an inadequately published paper they would be supporting that publication. However, the reality is like it or not the papers were published, wether they meet ICZN criteria is irrelevant.

: And yes, any form of pre-publication checking is desireable for all papers, etc, not just taxonomy ones.

Yes of course this applies to all papers, I am sure that you had someone look over your book manuscripts for you, if for no other reason than to get rid of typo's. If you are like me there are usually a few of them in the first draft.

I personally feel my papers have greatly benefited from stringent peer review. I remember one case in particular. I made an error in a paper where I wrote the wrong holotype number in a review paper (my C. oblonga paper) and would have inadvertently set the wrong type as a lectotype if it had been published. One of four reviewers picked that up and pointed it out. I fixed it and now the world can see that paper without that very damaging (it would have cost us a species name) error. Its an embarressing mistake that snuck through right up to the final reviews. One I would normally keep to myself but I think it illustrates a point here. I am sure that many other people here have had similar mistakes in their work edited out just before publication. Please I am not asking for your worst nightmare stories....:-) entertaining as they would be.

: Thus at the end of all this, I've gotta say I think we agree on more than we don't.

I think we always have agreed more than we disagree Ray, all the best to you to..

Cheers, Scott

Follow Ups:

Agree 100% (more) WW 02/27/02 (1)
- Also Rare agreement 100% / no post Raymond Hoser 02/27/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Hi, : : Scott you hit the nail on the head with one of your comments - : : "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." : Yes I would have to agree that by doing this the journal bordered on cencorship, this was wrong and that is pretty much how I won the argument. : In there defence I can see their point of view they were afraid that by allowing a citation of an inadequately published paper they would be supporting that publication. However, the reality is like it or not the papers were published, wether they meet ICZN criteria is irrelevant. : : : And yes, any form of pre-publication checking is desireable for all papers, etc, not just taxonomy ones. : Yes of course this applies to all papers, I am sure that you had someone look over your book manuscripts for you, if for no other reason than to get rid of typo's. If you are like me there are usually a few of them in the first draft. : I personally feel my papers have greatly benefited from stringent peer review. I remember one case in particular. I made an error in a paper where I wrote the wrong holotype number in a review paper (my C. oblonga paper) and would have inadvertently set the wrong type as a lectotype if it had been published. One of four reviewers picked that up and pointed it out. I fixed it and now the world can see that paper without that very damaging (it would have cost us a species name) error. Its an embarressing mistake that snuck through right up to the final reviews. One I would normally keep to myself but I think it illustrates a point here. I am sure that many other people here have had similar mistakes in their work edited out just before publication. Please I am not asking for your worst nightmare stories....:-) entertaining as they would be. : : Thus at the end of all this, I've gotta say I think we agree on more than we don't. : I think we always have agreed more than we disagree Ray, all the best to you to.. : Cheers, Scott

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]