Journal of Cephalopod Biology

Hi John

This is the only thing that will come up in the Physiology and Biology forum about which I contribute information!

John, there is an element of "loose lips sink ships" in publishing, academic and other. This is probably why Steve sometimes says that he will later post something really interesting - or perhaps it is just to tease us! Something that no one has seen before is more desirable for a journal or news source. Scoops win!

Many people re-package an idea or an experiment or highlight different facets of it to publish more than one journal article (not journalism, but say, an academic journal) using data collected at the same time. A way to combine the prestige of a journal article with the oomph of more general press is to issue a press release on the day the article appears or someone gives a talk at a conference. In that case, the journal is the de facto first place it appears, and would usually offer far more depth and accuracy than more general media.

You are absolutely correct that it is the responsibility of the peer reviewers to maintain scientific standards. This is not only to protect against "hoaxes" (obfuscating jargon being used to pull one over on editors) but also to judge whether the researcher used appropriate measures, didn't confuse correlation with causation, checked all their numbers, and so on. But all this is also the responsibility of the author - it's not good to get a reputation for submitting crap work.

Academic writing is not a place where good writing is valued over content. I find myself in the regrettable position of having to edit things in such a way as to remove a writer's style! Sometimes the format of the publication trumps good writing, and that is a pity.

My idea - which is probably really different from whatever may result - of a TONMO production would straddle different spheres, with a certain amount of science written for the layperson, links to more in-depth articles so as to offer laypeople the opportunity to read more, and maybe some less scientific pieces from home aquarists and items that could fall under Culture and Entertainment. It wouldn't fit into any publishing categories, but it would reflect what TONMO community members might enjoy.

I hope this wasn't more than you wanted to know!

Melissa
 
Melissa,

Thanks for the reply. Actually, that's exactly what I wanted to know! I kinda figured that was the deal. I hope I didn't sound like I was jumping on Steve. I just get frustrated at all the academic elitism I see at the University level, and how detrimental it is to science both scientifically and politically, and I would hate to see anone, especially as influential as Steve, get burned by those types. Having worked with one of the most politically-charged government agencies in the U.S., I have learned first-hand how much manipulation and back-door dealing goes on. Its disheartening, yes, but it makes you learn diplomacy REAL quick.

I totally understand.

John
 
As an added stupidity no one has yet mentioned. sometimes academics are judged on the number of papers submitted-- there are actually some universities that have tenure requirements for number of papers published per year, so someone who published 6 stupid papers per year in "the journal of underwater basket-weaving" may get tenure when their colleague who publishes ground-breaking papers in Science or Nature isn't even considered. So, there is a cottage industry of journals that are credible enough to be counted towards quotas, but bogus enough that they don't do a good job of determining that the work is original, or meaningful, or whatever.

blech.
 
Fujisawas Sake said:
"I hope I didn't sound like I was jumping on Steve", and "I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not scientific discussion here on the board is a liability in the academic (worldview) sense"

I've just been so busy of late, John, that I hadn't responded; sorry.

No, I never thought that you were jumping on me (although everyone else is, and beating up Neil too). To a certain extent discussing new finds online has concerned me in the past, especially when these finds are unpublished (letting the cat out of the bag when it comes to research), especially when something had been submitted and knowing that if we were 'exposed' for having something in near-entirety online then our manuscript could well be rejected. What is of greater concern to me is discussing an idea freely, bouncing ideas around, even when I know that there are some less-than-ethical persons in the cephalopod community that would not hesitate to embark on a comparable research programme, or use information online for the sake of their own publications. There are some not-so-nice people out there. I've thought long and hard about this, and it no longer concerns me, so I for one will continue to talk freely about some of the exciting research developments, and take pity on anyone that would or might flog an online idea because of their own creative inadequacy.

We have to ask ourselves the question "For whom are we writing these papers?" Is it to boost our own egos, increase our publication record, or is it to disseminate information? If the real purpose of this is the latter then let's get stuff online. I know that my knowledge has benefited tremendously from online discussions, so it is mutually beneficial.

Re the journals - there is still a need for these, and for the peer-review process. That is quality control. Otherwise everything I say could be crap ... and we don't want that (I'm happy if only half of it is crap). It is one thing discussing ideas online, but another altogether drawing all of this together into an article suitable for publication.
 
Some scientists don’t like to work with the public which is fine, it takes all types. However, I agree 100% with Steve; let’s get the information out there. Most of us are publicity funded and it just takes a quick glance at the number of people on TONMO and the number of nature specials on cephalopods to see that people ARE very interested in the work we do. Scientific publications are read by very few people and are a poor choice for broad dissemination. We do need them as they contain a level of detail and usually standards of properly controlled and reviewed experiments that are not found elsewhere.

There are some not so nice people out there – it just takes a few. What happened to CephBase is a good example.

It seems to me that TONMO and The Cephalopod Page already provide an excellent platform for scientists and the public to discuss cephalopod issues AND publish popular articles. These sites don’t have high publication costs and they can immediately post new articles (instead of waiting for an issue to come out). They are not peer reviewed but if someone says something that is less than accurate they will likely very quickly be corrected. Both are moderated in some form. If it ain’t broke. . .

Besides, the truth is that most people really don’t want to read peer reviewed scientific articles. I’m not talking about the popular flashy Nature and Science stuff, I’m talking about bread and butter science journals. For those who do want to read such papers, CephBase and Google Scholar both provide instant electronic access to much or the recent scientific work. Access to this information is getting better and better all the time.
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top