Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)

Freshwater Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 2405-2412

  Schäfer, Ralf B ^a   Cooke, Steven J ^b   Arlinghaus, Robert ^c,d   Bonada, Núria ^e   Brischoux, François ^f   Casper, Andrew F ^g   Catford, Jane A ^h   Rolland, Virginie ⁱ  

^a Rheinland Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Landau   (Germany)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGY AND INLAND FISHERIES   (Germany)

^d HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^f CENTRE D ETUDES BIOLOGIQUES DE CHIZÉ   (France)

^g U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Journal quality metrics; Peer review; Publication culture; Young scientists

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053649977     PISSN: 00465070     EISSN: 13652427     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02673.x     Document Type: Note

References (34)

1. Aarssen L.W., Tregenza T., Budden A.E., Lortie C.J., Koricheva J. & Leimu R. (2008) Bang for your buck: rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. The Open Ecology Journal, 1, 14-19.
2. Bauer H.H. (2004) Science in the 21st century: knowledge monopolies and research cartels. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18, 643-660.
3. Baxt W.G., Waeckerle J.F., Berlin J.A. & Callaham M.L. (1998) Who reviews reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer review performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32, 310-317.
4. Blank R. (1991) The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. The American Economic Review, 81, 1041-1067.
5. Brischoux F. & Cook T.R. (2009) Juniors seek an end to the impact factor race. BioScience, 59, 638-639.
6. Budden A.E., Tregenza T., Aarssen L.W., Koricheva J.K., Leimu R. & Lortie C.J. (2008) Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 4-6.
7. Clavero M. (2010) "Awkward wording. Rephrase": linguistic injustice in ecological journals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 552-553.
8. Cole S., Cole J.R. & Simon G.A. (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214, 881-886.
9. Donaldson M.R., Hasler C.T., Hanson K.C., Clark T.D., Hinch S.G. & Cooke S.J. (2010) Injecting youth into peer-review to increase its sustainability: a case study of ecology journals. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 1-7.
10. Grod O.N., Lortie C.J. & Budden A.E. (2010) Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 187-192.
11. Hirsch J.E. (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569-16572.
12. Hojat M., Gonnella J.S. & Caelleigh A.S. (2003) Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8, 75-96.
13. Lombardi C.M. & Hurlbert S.H. (2009) Misprescription and misuse of one-tailed tests. Australasian Journal of Ecology, 34, 447-468.
14. Mayer-Pinto M., Underwood A.J., Tolhurst T. & Coleman R.A. (2010) Effects of metals on aquatic assemblages: what do we really know? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 391, 1-9.
15. McIntosh R.P. (1985) The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. McPeek M.A., DeAngelis D.A., Shaw R.G., Moore A.J., Rausher M.D., Strong D.R. et al. (2009) The golden rule of reviewing. The American Naturalist, 173, E155-E158.
17. Mulligan A. & Raphael E. (2010) Peer review in a changing world - preliminary findings of a global study. Serials, 23, 25-34.
18. Neff B.D. & Olden J.D. (2006) Is peer review a game of chance? BioScience, 56, 333-340.
19. Neff B.D. & Olden J.D. (2010) Not so fast: inflation in impact factors contributes to apparent improvements in journal quality. BioScience, 60, 455-459.
20. Opthof T. (1997) Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Research, 33, 1-7.
21. Perrings C., Naeem S., Ahrestani F., Bunker D.E., Burkill P., Canziani G. et al. (2010) Ecosystem services for 2020. Science, 330, 323-324.
22. Rasmussen J., Langer V. & Alroe H.F. (2006) Bias in peer review of organic farming grant applications. Agriculture Human Values, 23, 181-188.
23. Ross J.S., Gross C.P., Desai M.M., Hong Y.L., Grant A.O., Daniels S.R. et al. (2006) Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1675-1680.
24. Rossner M., van Epps H. & Hill E. (2008) Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, 179, 1091-1092.
25. Rothwell P.M. & Martyn C.N. (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Brain, 123, 1964-1969.
26. Sarkis J. (2009) Journal self-citation XVII: editorial self-citation requests - a commentary. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25, 141-148.
27. Schroter S., Black N., Evans S., Godlee F., Osorio L. & Smith R. (2008) What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 507-514.
28. Seglen P.O. (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314, 498-502.
29. Sennet R. (2007) The Culture of the New Capitalism. Yale University Press, Yale.
30. Statzner B. & Resh V.H. (2010) Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences. Freshwater Biology, 55, 2639-2653.
31. Tregenza T. (2002) Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 349-350.
32. Wager E. & Jefferson T. (2001) Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing, 14, 257-263.
33. Weber M. (1922) Wissenschaft als Beruf. In: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Ed. J. Winckelmann), pp. 582-613. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen.
34. Wilson A.E. (2007) Journal impact factors are inflated. BioScience, 57, 550-551.