Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)

Ralf B. Schäfer, Steven J. Cooke, Robert Arlinghaus, Núria Bonada, François Brischoux, Andrew F. Casper, Jane A. Catford, Virginie Rolland

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

1.Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process (Statzner & Resh, 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2405-2412
Number of pages8
JournalFreshwater Biology
Volume56
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2011

Fingerprint

researchers
ecology
structural change
salami
slicing
peers
ecologists
quality control
decision making
control methods
trend
recommendation
methodology

Keywords

  • Journal quality metrics
  • Peer review
  • Publication culture
  • Young scientists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Aquatic Science

Cite this

Schäfer, R. B., Cooke, S. J., Arlinghaus, R., Bonada, N., Brischoux, F., Casper, A. F., ... Rolland, V. (2011). Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010). Freshwater Biology, 56(11), 2405-2412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02673.x

Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010). / Schäfer, Ralf B.; Cooke, Steven J.; Arlinghaus, Robert; Bonada, Núria; Brischoux, François; Casper, Andrew F.; Catford, Jane A.; Rolland, Virginie.

In: Freshwater Biology, Vol. 56, No. 11, 01.11.2011, p. 2405-2412.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Schäfer, RB, Cooke, SJ, Arlinghaus, R, Bonada, N, Brischoux, F, Casper, AF, Catford, JA & Rolland, V 2011, 'Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)', Freshwater Biology, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 2405-2412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02673.x
Schäfer, Ralf B. ; Cooke, Steven J. ; Arlinghaus, Robert ; Bonada, Núria ; Brischoux, François ; Casper, Andrew F. ; Catford, Jane A. ; Rolland, Virginie. / Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010). In: Freshwater Biology. 2011 ; Vol. 56, No. 11. pp. 2405-2412.
@article{e92e7005a3d6491aa4f862b55069e33a,
title = "Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)",
abstract = "1.Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process (Statzner & Resh, 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",
author = "Sch{\"a}fer, {Ralf B.} and Cooke, {Steven J.} and Robert Arlinghaus and N{\'u}ria Bonada and Fran{\cc}ois Brischoux and Casper, {Andrew F.} and Catford, {Jane A.} and Virginie Rolland",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02673.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "56",
pages = "2405--2412",
journal = "Freshwater Biology",
issn = "0046-5070",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology - a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)

AU - Schäfer, Ralf B.

AU - Cooke, Steven J.

AU - Arlinghaus, Robert

AU - Bonada, Núria

AU - Brischoux, François

AU - Casper, Andrew F.

AU - Catford, Jane A.

AU - Rolland, Virginie

PY - 2011/11/1

Y1 - 2011/11/1

N2 - 1.Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process (Statzner & Resh, 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.

AB - 1.Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process (Statzner & Resh, 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.

KW - Journal quality metrics

KW - Peer review

KW - Publication culture

KW - Young scientists

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053649977&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053649977&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02673.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02673.x

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:80053649977

VL - 56

SP - 2405

EP - 2412

JO - Freshwater Biology

JF - Freshwater Biology

SN - 0046-5070

IS - 11

ER -