Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:31:39 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<000c01c488af$5fd27960$24bc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Bob Harrison wrote:
>>>I did read of one article, in the last year in ABJ,
>
>
> >Being printed in ABJ in itself was clear and compelling
> >evidence that what was being said was either not submitted
> >to peer review, or was unable to withstand peer review in
> >one or more actual science journals.
>
> Actually many articles in ABJ are subjected by Joe for peer review. All the
> Lusby's articles were.
Problem is it is difficult to tell what is opinion and what has gone
through review. I was the editor and publisher of our State newsletter.
It was a bit of a surprise to find one of our articles lifted in total
and in ABJ with no attribution or any request from them to publish it.
I was meticulous in getting approval from any source to publish their
articles or ideas (even posters on the beelist), so it took me back a
bit when ABJ did that. I was still new to beekeeping so thought ABJ was
the more authoritative of all the general beekeeping journals. They
finished that for me and I eventually dropped them and stayed with
Gleanings/Bee Culture.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
|
|