From Bill.Barendse csiro.au Thu Mar 3 15:30:27 2016
From: <Bill.Barendsecsiro.au>
Subject: Re: The peer review system
To: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap <angenmapanimalgenome.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:30:27 -0600
The hand of God paper or the Maradona method is an excellent example of post
publication review. Had it only been in biorxiv it would have just been ignored,
of course.
> On 4 Mar 2016, at 6:39 am, Larry Cogburn <cogburnapps.ag.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Should we retract published papers en masse?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:09 PM, DANIEL GIANOLA <gianolaansci.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> In Nature Genetics or PNAS a moderate amount of prayer can be helpful,
>> but nice visuales are possibly more powerful.
>>
>> Enviado desde Outlook Mobile
>> http://aka.ms/xp9y6l
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM -0800, "Andres Legarra"
>> <Andres.Legarratoulouse.inra.fr> wrote:
>>
>> I once sent one paper to Plos ONE, review was fine, but the editorial
>> process _after_ the review was sloppy. This is one of the reasons for me
>> not to send more manuscripts.
>>
>> My own experience as associate editor of GSE and frequent reviewer of other
>> journals (Genetics, JDS, JAS, JABG) is that editors and reviewers take
>> their work very seriously. I definitely think that journals controlled by
>> Societies (such as Genetics or JDS) are more focused.
>>
>> Andres
>>
>> On 03/03/16 15:06, DANIEL GIANOLA wrote:
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> I side with you and will join your proposal of a boycott to PLOS ONE. Here
>> goes a definition (Wikipedia):
>>
>> "A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing
>> with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually
>> for social or political reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflictsome
>> economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, to try to compel
>> the target to alter an objectionable behavior."
>>
>> which should be extended to "social, political or scientific reasons"
>>
>> I must be brief. Otherwise I will miss the 00:10 flying ark.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> .From: Taylor, Jerry F. (Animal Science) <taylorjerrmissouri.edu>
>> .Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 5:41 PM
>> .To: DANIEL GIANOLA
>> .Cc: Multiple Recipients of
>> .Subject: Re: The peer review system
>>
>> Take a look at the reader comments. Plenty of calls for retraction in there!
>>
>> Sometimes it just makes you wonder why we find it so hard to get papers
>> published with 3-4 rounds of review and re-review and then something
>> like this pops up!
>>
>> I didnt much like PLoS One before thisbut now I think we will make sure
>> that our papers go elsewhere.by design!
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 5:23 PM, DANIEL GIANOLA <gianolaansci.wisc.edu>
>>
>> Just read the abstract of this PLoS One paper:
>> http://journals.plos.org/...ne.0146193
>> Draw your own conclusion.
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> Andres Legarra
>> +33 561285182
>> INRA, UR1388 GenPhySE SAGA
>> CS 52627
>> 31326 Castanet Tolosan, France
|
