[Previous by date - Fwd: And now my quarterly nitpicking...]
[Next by date - Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)]
[Previous by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume? (short!)]
[Next by subject - Re: Animal 'bar codes' to take over from Latin names]
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:58:02 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: PML <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: And now my quarterly nitpicking...
> Perhaps other members of the advisory group will respond as well, but > the reason I favor peer review as a requirement for publishing names > and definitions is that good phylogenetic definitions are difficult > to formulate. It is easy to make mistakes in the wording of > definitions that the author and the systematic community regret later. OK. Sounds good. > I am surprised to read that "many journals are not peer-reviewed." > It is my impression that most reputable journals are peer-reviewed, I have been to the biosciences library today. It turns out many journals don't tell if they're peer-reviewed. Springer journals talk about "the review process" but don't indicate if perhaps just the editors do this. Judging from past discussions about this article on this list, peer-review seems to be a US-centered phenomenon. In any case, Art. 4 should state that the precise paper/chapter in question must be peer-reviewed. There are journals which only occasionally publish peer-reviewed articles (e. g. the Dinosaur Society "Quarterly"), and there are journals run by societies in which articles by society members are not peer-reviewed. > Also, the International Society > for Phylogenetic Nomenclature (which will be inaugurated in Paris > next summer) may want to create a journal dedicated to publishing > names and definitions if PhyloCode users are having trouble finding > peer-reviewed outlets for their papers. This is a good idea.