PLB: < I thought the information was well researched, wellassembled, and similar to what I have been saying for quite a while now. Thehoney bee is not endangered in the US and definitely not worldwide. >

I'm with Peter on this one.  It's more or less what I have been thinking needed to be written, but last couple of years my 'retirement' has been busier than before, and I've just not had the discipline to do it.  I'm very glad to see that someone put in the time and effort to provide an overview analysis. Pair this with last month's article in National Geographic about the War on Science, and you get a pretty good idea of what's happening in this day of instant information.

As per Journals, the OnLine journals are a double-edged sword.  Every week I get requests to submit to yet another journal, or to review papers for these - many are traceable to China.  Most journalists and writers don't realize that researchers generally have to PAY to publish, in addition to subjecting their articles to editors and peer-review.  For print journals, it's obvious why - no advertisers and significant cost to put out each edition.  Those costs are greatly reduced for OnLine journals, yet even PLoS ONE charges a hefty fee, and the pop-up journals are all trying to cash in on this money machine.  Even our undergraduate students get invites to submit (and obviously, they are flattered and thrilled).  In these times, say anything about bees, and you'll suddenly get overwhelmed by invites from these 'new' journals.

What we've learned from personal experience, even the major ONLINE journals have a very different approach to reviewing and published articles than those of the tried and true hard copy journals.   The established, discipline-specific journals typically were edited by scientists who had established credibility in their fields.  They were scientists first, editors second.  These editors do more than just check formatting and send out for reviews.  They try to find appropriate reviewers, they evaluate the reviews, they give the authors a chance to respond, and they may even decide to publish dissenting opinions in the same issue, all to encourage information exchange and dialogue.  

ONLINE journals often have editors who are more skilled as journalists or copy editors than science.  the Online reviewers often volunteer (rather than are invited) and/or recommended by others who manage to publish in the journal.  I see a real trend for inexperienced scholars recommending their friends.  The online journal editors often seem to have little knowledge of the true experience of many of these reviewers.  Even more disturbing is what I have labeled 'ambush' publications by online journals.  

I'm from a period where if there was a paper submitted challenging an article, the journal editor would feel compelled to ask the authors of the original paper to respond before making any decision about publication of the second opinion/paper.  The journal editor could then weigh the arguments and then decide whether to ignore, to seek the advice of others, to invite both parties to respond - but they ALWAYS gave the authors of the original article a chance to respond, and if warranted a forum that provided for a reasoned discourse. There was an unwritten code of ethics that gave everyone a chance to have their say.

With the onlines, publish a paper, and if anyone disagrees, you'll get a notice 24 hrs before a dissenting paper is published, stating - so and so disagrees with you, the paper will be published tomorrow.  Feel free to respond in the comments.  

Why not let the original paper's authors know about the challenge and  give them a chance respond before deciding to publish the second paper?  I suspect it is so they can: 1) charge an additional publication charge (we're talking rates as high as $1500) for the second and follow up papers, and 2) ensure that the controversy will generate lots of interest and comments, and even more papers, yielding more income for the journal and increasing the journals Impact Factor scale.   Note, publishing a note or paper in response to a challenger puts both parties on a level playing field.  Relegating the  first group to comments, which people may or may not read is like printing a retraction to a front page article in a note  on the 15th page or bottom of a column where few will notice.
 
Very different world - I'm getting old.


             ***********************************************
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