Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology – a response to Statzner & Resh (2010) |
| |
| Authors: | RALF B. SCHÄFER STEVEN J. COOKE ROBERT ARLINGHAUS NÚRIA BONADA FRANÇOIS BRISCHOUX ANDREW F. CASPER JANE A. CATFORD VIRGINIE ROLLAND |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Quantitative Landscape Ecology, Institute for Environmental Sciences, University Koblenz‐Landau, Landau, Germany;2. Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Institute of Environmental Science and Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada;3. Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany;4. Inland Fisheries Management Laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture, Humboldt‐Universit?t zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany;5. Grup de Recerca Freshwater Ecology and Management (FEM), Departament d’Ecologia, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain;6. CEBC‐CNRS, Villiers en Bois, France;7. Biological Effects and Population Response Branch, USEPA Office of Research and Development, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL, U.S.A.;8. School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia;9. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A. |
| |
| Abstract: | 1. Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process ( Statzner & Resh, Freshwater Biology, 2010 ; 55 , 2639) to generate discussion, particularly among early career researchers (ECRs). As a group of eight ECRs, we comment on the six trends they described. 2. We generally agree with most of the trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010) , but also highlight a number of divergent perspectives and provide recommendations for change. Trends of particular concern are the use of inappropriate metrics to evaluate research quality (e.g. impact factor) and the salami slicing of papers to increase paper count. We advocate a transparent and comprehensive system for evaluating the research. 3. We stress the importance of impartiality and independence in the peer review process. We therefore suggest implementation of double‐blind review and quality control measures for reviewers and possibly editors. Besides such structural changes, editors should be confident to overrule biased reviewer recommendations, while reviewers should provide helpful reviews but be explicit if a submission does not meet quality standards. Authors should always conduct a thorough literature search and acknowledge historical scientific ideas and methods. Additionally, authors should report low‐quality copy editing and reviews to the editors. 4. Both early and late career researchers should jointly implement these recommendations to reverse the negative trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010) . However, more senior scientists will always have to take the lead with respect to structural changes in the publication system given that they occupy the majority of decision‐making positions. |
| |
| Keywords: | journal quality metrics peer review publication culture young scientists |
|
|
