Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by Scott Thomson on February 27, 2002 at 03:43:56:
In Reply to: Monitor Peer Review Q posted by WW on February 27, 2002 at 02:59:31:
thankyou, you have demonstrated my point perfectly.
ScottE, I never said that Monitor was not reviewed, I said it was not adequately reviewed for taxonomic papers.
Your reviewer should be anonomous, your problem is that as Wolfgang alluded to you need more of them. You need to find a series of different people with different skills then you send the papers out to them (at least two for each paper) for review. Then they are reviewing a topic about which they have some knowledge. I mean would your reviewer think to check that all the museum numbers were correct, that the right amount of data was presented on each specimen, that a specimen list even exists in the paper, and many more technicle things in a taxonomic paper that just have to be right.
: : Scott,
: : Just a note on Monitor....It is now Peer Reviewed. The reviewer however is wishing to remain anon.
: Maybe I misunderstood you, but are you saying that there is only one peer reviewer for the entire journal, irrespective of subject matter?