[Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and online import of specimen records from BOLD
agosti at amnh.org
Wed Sep 23 00:56:10 CDT 2015
"how could traditional journals implement the ARPHA or a similar system seamlessly?"
We can't disregard changing technologies. The development of steam engines has changed transportation industry - so might the Internet the print-based publishing. But we had at the end a much more efficient system, even though less horses have been used.
But the advantages are clear.
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Lahr
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:06 PM
To: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and online import of specimen records from BOLD
Full support to this initiative from my part. Working on a group with relatively few experts, it is fairly obvious and easy to realize who is reviewing your taxonomic paper.
My only concern at this point would be one of implementation -- how could traditional journals implement the ARPHA or a similar system seamlessly?
Daniel J. G. Lahr
PhD, Assist. Prof.
Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil Office number: + 55 (11) 3091 0948 http://www.ib.usp.br/zoologia/lahr/
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:
> Given that I've spent around 15 years advocating that we replace
> traditional peer review with a public review system, I am happy and
> encouraged by Lyubo's initiative on this front, and hope that it is
> just the first step of many to come. Frankly, I'm frustrated that it
> has taken this long to get even this small step taken - this change
> can't come fast enough to suit me.
> As for comments regarding the "small research community" issue, the
> status quo has a potentially very negative side, and that is the "clique"
> mentality. Public review is the only cure for cliques. It broadens the
> range of referees beyond the boundary of the clique, and - most
> - exposes the clique members to scrutiny; any reviews that lack
> objectivity will be seen for what they are. At the same time, it
> prevents people from making false accusations that they are being conspired against.
> I would consider it an improvement to how we do science if instead of
> manuscripts being reviewed by three referees in 12 weeks, we could
> have 12 reviews (or more) in 3 weeks. There is no limit to how many
> referees an online document can have, and shared documents reduce
> redundancy of referee effort (e.g., if one referee fixes a typo, no
> one else has to). The review process can be made faster, more efficient, and more objective.
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom