Available Now at New York Worms!
News & Events:
Posted by Raymond Hoser on February 27, 2002 at 16:30:18:
In Reply to: Re: Monitor Peer Review Q posted by Scott Thomson on February 27, 2002 at 03:43:56:
In defence of Monitor, may I make a few statements.
When editor, we sent out everything for independent review and in every case and as a matter of course, it went past AT LEAST FOUR such reviewers. The system worked well, bearing in mind the other constraint that was imposed on me from higher up, in terms that we actively encouraged first time "amateur" authors and professionals alike - a fact readily seen by the author lists and contents of the papers.
Now bearing in mind that I was a so-caleld stop-gap editor, it is fair to say that the way I did things was also to an extent "stop-gap".
Simon Watharow is now the head editor of the publication and in his defence is learning the ropes to to that extent cannot compete with the long-term peer reviewed publications (and for other reasons as well).
My assumption however (and understanding) is that he sends out papers to be reviewed by people he thinks best to do so and not just one person as implied in the previous posts.
Now I am not here to defend Watharow as such (because quite simply he does things differently to how I would - which is plainly his call), but if I can say something similar to what I've said before and that is some so-called "professional" publications have been sorely lacking in quality (e.g. that Dan Lunney one I've mentioned in the past), while some sao-called Amateur ones (e.g. some issues of Herpetofauna (Australia), have literally run rings around such publications ... again the distinction between "amateur and professional" is neither clear cut or always a fair one in terms of defining who does the quality work. ... at best the terms can be said to define trends in these terms. (exucuse the poor english)