[Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and online import of specimen records from BOLD

[Donat Agosti]

"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.

Donat


-----Original Message-----
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?

dan

__________________________________
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 
> importantly
> - 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.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> 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)
>              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   "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
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.