In 2010, two senior ecologists wrote a thought-provoking paper about their experience of the scientific publication process. One of their aims was to generate discussion about the publication process, and that it did: it led to a follow-up piece by a group of eight early career researchers from six countries. In their paper, Schäfer and co (including qaecologist Jane Catford) comment on six key trends in publishing and suggest ways in which the process can be improved. Among the recommendations are increased impartiality and independence of the peer-review process through a move to double-blind review and use of quality control measures for reviewers and editors.
Search this site:
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Recent Qaecologist blog posts (May 2013, Weeks 1 & 2) May 20, 2013 qaecology
- What could be wrong with transparent conservation decision-making? May 18, 2013 qaecology
- Species on the move: things to consider when translocating species May 8, 2013 qaecology
- Recent Qaecologist blog posts (April 2013) May 3, 2013 qaecology
- Bridging the great divide: road crossings and their value for wildlife April 24, 2013 qaecology
- RT @dpannell66: New post: 238 - Ranking e pannelldiscussions.net/2013/05/238-ra… 18 hours ago
- RT @mickresearch: Effects of chytrid on stream frog mortality. New paper in Cons Biol onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/co… HT @kwren88 cc @can_essay @Hea… 1 day ago