> > The nicknames sound infinately better than a flood of slapdash new species
> > publications in obscure unrefereed journals! :-)
>
> Well, well! Please be careful. Who is to say what is 'obscure'. I
> know people who call an article obscure when it is not published in
> _their_ country and/or _their_ language.
Sure, I'm not suggesting that "obscurity" is an intrinsic quality of a
journal. Obscurity depends on your point of view (or more often, your
location and language fluency). But researchers can make choices about
where to publish...or should make choices. Going for the journal with
the most liberal acceptance policy isn't the best criterion.
> And as far as 'refereed' or 'peer review' journals are concerned,
> that is a very difficult subject. I have seen a lot of 'Bull' in peer
> review journals and a lot of good material in non-peer review ones. I
> do not want to generalise, but a lot of peer reviewers tend to do what the
> editor wants or what they think the editor wants (by the way, I am a referee
>
> PS: I have got my asbestes suit on.
Why not publish in a Journal with editorship you agree with? Or does that
leave you with only unrefereed journals? :-)
I don't know about you, but I'm glad articles _I've_ submitted have been
looked over by reviewers first! Constructive criticism can be a learning
opportunity (but may require unzipping that asbestos suit :-)
Michael Chamberland