So, as a scientific publications editor for more than 20 years (1986-2005), this thread has caused me quite a bit of bemusement. A few things.
1. Peer review. It's always a good thing, and having a very diverse group of reviewers is key. That way the manuscripts can be routed to an appropriate expert, and then routed to another for a second look or held for group review meetings if there are questions. Consultations between several reviewers can also occur behind the scenes. Happens all the time, and helps to maintain quality and accuracy.
2. Credentials of the editor. Having a scientist as the editor of a science-based endeavor is always preferable to having someone with only a literary background (CAVEAT: their education must be in a related/complementary field of the publication). Again, it helps to maintain quality and accuracy, and minimizes the chance of introducing error. Interpretations often vary when data and statistics are examined. What's the phrase, "lies, damn lies, and statistics?"
3. The editor is the voice of the publication. That's their job, and why they're getting paid. They give the publication its personality. I have always believed that the best editors make their edits without changing the voice of a contributing author. But then again, all publications have style guidelines that dictate grammar, tone and syntax. It's a fine line.
4. Disclaimers. This is a new one on me (unless it's a sponsored supplement or other advertising vehicle), but I would suppose it keeps the lawyers at bay. If you have a general disclaimer on the masthead, then I would agree that a second, separate disclaimer on the end of certain articles might be both prejudicial and overkill; if you want to print one at the end of all articles, however, have at it (still overkill, but not prejudicial). Alternately, you can make the single disclaimer wishy-washy, ie, "the authors' views do not necessarily reflect those of the publication." That way you can agree with some and dispute others. Or yes, print an editorial comment, although the latter might be more inflammatory than the disclaimer.
5. Point-counterpoint. Done to death, yet always fun when the two combatants are truly vested in their arguments--and have objective evidence to back their viewpoints. Otherwise, it's pablum. Works best as a live interaction, which can then be recorded (video or audio) and or transcribed.
Finally, let's all take a breath; very little of what is done constitutes personal attacks. Just my 2c.
S
Skillman, NJ
***********************************************
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
|
