Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

I think this is an important issue and I would appreciate David setting
out the sort of procedures journal editors should operate. There is as
many of you know a vast literature on peer review but most of it seems to
me concerned with explaining that it works badly rather than accepting
that it is here to stay, that it is what authors and readers want and that
refereeing procedures need to improved. Some publishers have check list.
Perhaps some can be offered for our consideration. I am not sure I like
the use of the word "in fact" and I cannot see that I was describing any
editorial policy - only that it was an "editorial" not a "publishing"
policy. I know most journals do not accept papers on the basis he
described, but I have no doubt that such things do happen.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
To: <reedelscustomers@lists.cc.utexas.edu>
Cc: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; <tscott@uab.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act


> My good friend Anthony has kindly provided
> exactly the illustration I needed.
>
> His description below is  a very
> good account of the kind of inadequate editing and reviewing
> that I had in mind. In fact, for at least one the articles involved, it
> corresponds very closely to what I have been told actually happened,
> where the article was self-invited,  self-refereed,  and self-edited.
>
> As for copyright infringement, I believe one of the roles of reviewers,
> in particular, is to be aware of material on the subject that has been
> previously published. The editor selects the reviewers.