The Top Journals in Science (for retractions)

Roger Pielke Jr. reports on a Wall Street Journal article on the number of retractions published in scientific journals. The top three journals in the number of retractions (1900 to 2010)? 1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (57 retractions) 2. Science (54 retractions) 3. Nature (43 retractions) Graphic here by N. Saunders. Think […]

Please don’t write multiple-part papers!

I’ve talked about this topic of writing multiple-part papers before. Earlier this year, I published an article about what the data show from Monthly Weather Review. Schultz, D. M., 2011: Rejection rates for multiple-part manuscripts. Scientometrics, 86, 251-259. [PDF] I found that although the rejection rates for multiple-part manuscripts were not that different from the […]

For better outcomes in the review process, send your editor some food and drink

If the results from a recently published article on the factors affecting judges making parole decisions are analogous to that of a journal editor making accept/revise/reject decisions on manuscripts, then send your editor some food and encourage them to take a break. Danziger, S., J. Levav, and L. Avnaim-Pesso, 2011: Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. […]

Quick Guide to Writing a Solid Peer Review

Nicholas and Gordon, writing in EOS, offer up one of the best summaries of how to write a peer review I’ve read. Download that article from here.

“This issue was not raised by the other reviewers, so we prefer not to address it.”

As a reviewer and an editor, I occasionally see an author respond to a reviewer comment with the above response: “This issue was not raised by the other reviewers, so we prefer not to address it.” This response has always bothered me, but I didn’t know why. After thinking about it recently, now I know […]

Offensive and Defensive Writing: The Secret to Getting Your Manuscript Published?

In a recent email conversation with my friend John Knox, he mentioned a game that he played by trying to spot the parts of the text in a scientific article that the author added specifically to address reviewers’ concerns. I have to admit to playing the same game at times. John’s point was that the […]

The Increasing Number of Open-Access Publishers: A Good Thing?

As a specialist in your field of research, we are pleased to invite you to contribute to our forthcoming Open Access book, XXXXXX. The book will be published by XXXXXX, Open Access publisher of books and journals in the fields of science, technology and medicine. XXXXX is a pioneer in the publication of Open Access […]

Guidelines for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers

This statement was adopted by the Council of the American Meteorological Society on 22 September 2010. It was largely derived from guidelines that were published by the American Chemical Society and were also adopted by the American Geophysical Union. Publications Commissioner David Jorgensen deserves a lot of credit for bringing these guidelines to the Council. […]

The most prestigious journal in the world

Caleb Emmons, Professor of Mathematics at Pacific University, is the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Universal Rejection. The Web site of the journal promotes the advantages of the journal. You can send your manuscript here without suffering waves of anxiety regarding the eventual fate of your submission. You know with 100% certainty that […]

“Even referees were not infallible.” – L. F. Richardson

Happy 129th birthday (11 October 1881) to Lewis Fry Richardson, who pioneered the first numerical weather prediction and for whom the Richardson number is named. Jim Matthew of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society lent me a copy of his biography Prophet or Professor? by Oliver Ashford. As I was reading it today, I came across the […]

« Previous Page — Next Page »