Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo
dc.contributor.author Kitzberger, Thomas
dc.date.available 2017-01-27T20:57:59Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.citation Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo; Kitzberger, Thomas; Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections; Queen's University; Ideas In Ecology and Evolution; 8; 1; -1-2015; 1-6
dc.identifier.issn 1918-3178
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11336/12126
dc.description.abstract In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally accepted in journals of similar ranking to which they were originally submitted. We thus concluded that editors appear to be “poor oracles” with regards to being able evaluate the quality of a manuscript without the help of external reviewers. This article was recently criticized by the team of editors of the Ecological Society of America. In this work, we clarify some misunderstandings and offer new evidence supporting our view that external reviews should be the rule in the process of publishing scientific literature. Specifically, here we argue that (a) the claim that editorial rejections are based on manuscripts not adjusting to the journal’s scope rather than on academic quality is unconvincing; (b) if academic quality is being assessed to decide the fate of a submitted paper, this attribute must be evaluated including several external opinions and not only the superficial reading of one person, (c) our survey design was appropriate and, despite the small sample size, the conclusion that editors are poor oracles seems to be fairly reliable and, (d) the practice of sending the majority of submitted papers to external review should not cause the collapse of most popular journals. We insist that for the sake of science, editors need the opinion of external experts and should not act as oracles.
dc.format application/pdf
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Queen's University
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.subject ACADEMIC QUALITY
dc.subject PEER REVIEW PROCCESS
dc.subject EDITORIAL REJECTIONS
dc.subject.classification Otros Tópicos Biológicos
dc.subject.classification Ciencias Biológicas
dc.subject.classification CIENCIAS NATURALES Y EXACTAS
dc.title Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? A reply to Schimel et al. (2014) about the malpractice of editorial rejections
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated 2016-12-12T14:22:22Z
dc.journal.volume 8
dc.journal.number 1
dc.journal.pagination 1-6
dc.journal.pais Canadá
dc.description.fil Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina
dc.description.fil Fil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Laboratorio de Ecotono; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina
dc.journal.title Ideas In Ecology and Evolution
dc.relation.alternativeid info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.4033/iee.2015.8.1.f
dc.relation.alternativeid info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/IEE/article/view/5514


Archivos asociados

Aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Excepto donde se diga explícitamente, este item se publica bajo la siguiente descripción: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)