For most of my career - the peer-reviewed journals had Ph.D. level scientists as editors - and the editor always had the last say.
 
However, with some of the major online journals, the overall editors may be journalists, not scientists.  That can lead to serious problems when reviewers and authors exploit that knowledge weakness.
 
In the case of ABJ, Kirsten is a scientist - still doing research.  She has a Ph.D. and was/is a USDA NIFA ELI postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, studying honey bee health and nutrition. 
 
If I submitted a paper to ABJ and there was a serious disagreement about interpretation of results, I'd be more than open to having the ABJ editor send the article to a couple of peers for input.  I don't expect ABJ to peer-review every paper.  
 
Where there's a substantive disagreement, the resolution is simple.  The editor simply needs to poll a couple of peers.  That would improve the quality of the science oriented articles.  Let's not bog thing down by insisting on full peer-review for all papers, but selective use of peer input would provide yet another check of quality. 
 
Having an Editor who is a Scientist is a step forward.  That's in line with the model of the established science journals.
 
 
 
 
 
 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html