I will second this. As an editor, i went through 8 referees - including all of the authors' suggestions- to find just two. I was supposed to find three, but we gave up at two.
Another, related point: I was at an iucr meeting a few years ago and complained to Howard E, asking him why he was sending me so many mss to review. His reply was: "well, you sent two mss in, and I have to get two reviews for each. So I keep score - for each ms you send, I send two mss to you to review. Otherwise the system doesn't work."
I took it to heart and stopped complaining. And try to be more diligent about reviewing.
Adrian Goldman
On 12 Aug 2011, at 01:46, Phoebe Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Some people on this list seem to think that reviewers are on the whole lazy and irresponsible and in need of some sort of public ridicule.
>
> Please don't forget that reviewing manuscripts, while an important duty for members of the community, is already in practice a completely thankless volunteer job. My understanding is that journal editors often have a very difficult job talking 3 people per paper into acting as reviewers.
>
> =====================================
> Phoebe A. Rice
> Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
> The University of Chicago
> phone 773 834 1723
> http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/Faculty_and_Research/01_Faculty/01_Faculty_Alphabetically.php?faculty_id=123
> http://www.rsc.org/shop/books/2008/9780854042722.asp
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:42:34 -0500
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board <[log in to unmask]> (on behalf of Jacob Keller <[log in to unmask]>)
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Another paper & structure retracted
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Do reviewers ever get taken to task for these things? Don't they share
>> at least some of the responsibility? Maybe they should have to give
>> their explicit imprimatur, perhaps only after the fact, if published?
>>
>> JPK
>>
>>
>>
>> 2011/8/11 Colin Nave <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> Well this article seems to have been refereed to 11 times so presumably these 11 publications also have to be retracted. I haven't checked the number of citations for each of the 11 publications but articles citing these will also be in doubt. And then ......
>>>
>>> It reminds me somewhat of the Erdos number calculation. How many publications are each of us away from this. Is anyone safe.
>>>
>>> Colin :(
>>>
>>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Schuller
>>> Sent: 10 August 2011 22:01
>>> To: ccp4bb
>>> Subject: [ccp4bb] Another paper & structure retracted
>>>
>>> Time to fuel up the gossip engines for the approaching weekend:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096921260800186X
>>>
>>> RETRACTED: Structure of the Parathyroid Hormone Receptor C Terminus Bound to the G-Protein Dimer Gβ1γ2
>>> Structure, Volume 16, Issue 7<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236269%232008%23999839992%23693753%23FLA%23&_cdi=6269&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000022719&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=492137&md5=9dc4b8953d3fa243dc98e395b6ac590d>, 9 July 2008, Pages 1086-1094
>>> Structure 2QNS withdrawn.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> =======================================================================
>>>
>>> All Things Serve the Beam
>>>
>>> =======================================================================
>>>
>>> David J. Schuller
>>>
>>> modern man in a post-modern world
>>>
>>> MacCHESS, Cornell University
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *******************************************
>> Jacob Pearson Keller
>> Northwestern University
>> Medical Scientist Training Program
>> cel: 773.608.9185
>> email: [log in to unmask]
>> *******************************************
|