[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Pricesaurus = Anhanguera (Pterosauria) (free pdf)

 I would agree that the majority of journals do their best to try to
conduct their peer review process with fairness and integrity, but of
course there are those on the fringe and then the 'journals' that
aren't really journals (a couple of herpetology ones come to mind).  I
was also thinking more along the lines of independent bulletin series
where the peer review policies may not be as strict.  How exactly does
one validate the line between 'gray' and 'legit'?  Again I think that
requiring taxonomic acts to be subject to stringent peer review is a
good idea, I just am unsure how to define stringent peer review for
this purpose. All of us probably have personal opinions on those we
consider to have the ability to provide a proper review and on those
we don't, but how do we quantify this? Does one need a peer review

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
> William Parker <saurian55@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The problem is who is to decide what constitutes valid peer review?
>> If you send the manuscript to one or two paleontologists who may not
>> be subject experts, is this as valid a review as sending it to two
>> persons who have published extensively on the subject?  What if they
>> have published extensively, but their views are not held by most in
>> the field, does their review still count as "valid" for the purposes
>> of the IZCN?  I agree this needs to be done but it is a very slippery
>> slope.
> I meant "peer review" as determined by the policy of the scientific
> journal to which the manuscript is sent.  Is this what you meant?
> As you know (probably only too well!), scientific journals typically
> have a process to determine if a manuscript should be published or not
> by that journal.  This means the editor(s) either rejects the
> manuscript outright, or sends the paper out to workers in the field to
> review.  Whether or not the views of the reviewers count is determined
> by the editor(s) of that journal.  There have been times when I've
> taken issue with some boneheaded comments by a reviewer of my
> manuscripts; and often (but not always!) I've convinced the editor to
> set aside those comments.
> I know peer review is an imperfect process - to say the least.  But
> it's better than nothing at all.
> Cheers
> Tim