Re: [asa] ? about peer review

> A referee, I base my decisions solely on the quality, correctness of a paper and its appropriateness to the journal submitted.<

Originality might be listed as a separate category. It's hard to find
publishing for a paper that says "Everything in my study turned out
exactly as expected based on the very similar previously published
studies", even if it's well-done and on topic. As a result, the
purported novelty of a study tends to get overplayed, especially in
the title.

There are two distinct roles involved-editor and reviewer. The editor
selects reviewers and makes a decision based on their comments, as
well as on his/her own judgement. The reviewer comments and often
gives a recommendation such as "accept/accept with minor
revision/requires major revision/reject", but does not make the
decision.

I've been the editor only once, for a paper studying the distribution
of endangered snails in three creeks (their known range) submitted to
a regional journal of field biology. Obviously a much less stringent
situation than acceptance in Science.

This has led to misleading claims in antievolutionary literature in
which papers that report slightly unusual evolutionary patterns get
cited as if they posed major problems for conventional evolutionary
biology.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.