Gad Perry1, Jaime Bertoluci2, Bruce Bury3, Robert W. Hansen4, Robert Jehle5, John Measey6, Brad R. Moon7, Erin Muths8, and Marco A. L. Zuffi9,* 1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; Journal of Herpetology. 2 Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil; Phyllomedusa. 3 USGS, Corvallis, OR, USA; Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 4 Clovis, CA, USA; Herpetological Review. 5 University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK; Herpetological Journal. 6 University of the Western Cape, South Africa; African Journal of Herpetology. 7 University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA, USA; Herpetologica. 8 USGS, Fort Collins, CO, USA; Journal of Herpetology. 9 Museum Natural History, University of Pisa, Italy; Acta Herpetologica

Bertoluci, Jaime

Bury, Bruce

Hansen, Robert W.

Jehle, Robert

John Measey

Moon, Brad R.

Muths, Erin

Perry, Gad

Zuffi, Marco A. L.

Phyllomedusa Journal of Herpetology

Undetermined

Measey, John

Zuffi, Marco A.L.

Firenze University Press: E-Journals

ISSN 1827-9635 (print) © Firenze University Press 
ISSN 1827-9643 (online) www.fupress.com/ah
Editorial
The “Peer” in “Peer Review”
Gad Perry1, Jaime Bertoluci2, Bruce Bury3, Robert W. Hansen4, Robert Jehle5, 
John Measey6, Brad R. Moon7, Erin Muths8, Marco A.L. Zuffi9,*
1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; Journal of Herpetology
2 Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; Phyllomedusa
3 USGS, Corvallis, OR, USA; Herpetological Conservation and Biology
4 Clovis, CA, USA; Herpetological Review
5 University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK; Herpetological Journal
6 University of the Western Cape, South Africa; African Journal of Herpetology
7 University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA, USA; Herpetologica
8 USGS, Fort Collins, CO, USA; Journal of Herpetology
9 Museum Natural History, University of Pisa, Italy; Acta Herpetologica
Peer review is the best available mechanism for assessing and improving the quality of 
scientific work. As herpetology broadens its disciplinary and geographic boundaries, high-
quality external review is ever more essential. We are writing this editorial jointly because 
the review process has become increasingly difficult. The resulting delays slow publication 
times, negatively affect performance reviews, tenure, promotions, and grant proposal suc-
cess. It harms authors, agencies, and institutions (Ware, 2011)
In our review process, editors assign each new submission to a knowledgeable Asso-
ciate Editor, who seeks sufficient expert reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. In recent 
years, Editors have commented on the increasing difficulty of finding willing reviewers, 
and have speculated on its causes, often citing selfishness (Ghazoul, 2011; Hochberg, 2010; 
McPeek et al., 2009; Navarro et al., 2010; Sheppard, 2000; Thompson, 2010). There are 
certainly people who regularly decline requests to review, but our experience agrees with 
Ware (2011) that they are the exception. Why, then, is the problem getting worse?
Most reviewers reside at academic institutions and government agencies facing budget 
cuts, unfunded “accountability” measures, and increasing privatization and commerciali-
zation (Perry et al., 2007). Writing an informed and constructive review takes consider-
able work. As professional responsibilities increase each year, the time and recognition for 
such unpaid work diminish. Moreover, potential reviewers are sometimes instructed to 
minimize their service activities (Garrison, 2005). Yet competent peer review is as vital a 
part of the scientific process as any experiment.
* With the exception of the first author, authors are arranged in alphabetical order
G. Perry et al.
Our goal is to provide a publication process that is objective, efficient, timely, and 
pleasant. We are exploring various options for addressing the problem, and we need your 
help. Please help us by taking the following steps:
If you are asked to review a manuscript, please respond quickly. This will shorten the 
process. Delays in review often begin with a tardy response to the request for a review. 
Please do your best to say “Yes.” If you do, please make sure to meet the deadline or 
explicitly request an extension to a specific date. We are increasingly facing delays because 
of chasing colleagues who missed the deadline, sometimes by many weeks.
If you are not able to do the review, do not have the time to provide an in-depth 
review, or do not think you can meet the deadline, then please say “No” right away and 
suggest one or more alternate potential reviewers.
Involve your advanced graduate students in the review process while maintaining the 
confidentiality of the process. Explain that this is an important part of their professional 
duties. 
Advocate to administrators the value of reviewer service at every opportunity, explain 
that it is a performance-related part of your job that helps keep you up-to-date, and ask 
for it to be part of your annual evaluation.
These are simple steps, but they will greatly help reduce delay and frustration. Many 
thanks in advance,
Your editors 
REFERENCES
Garrison, C. (2005): Exploring new faculty orientation: The good, the bad, and making it 
better. Essays in Education 13: 1-9.
Ghazoul, J. (2011): Reviewing Peer Review. Biotropica 43: 1-2.
Hochberg, M.E. (2010): Youth and the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ideas Ecol. Evol. 
3: 8-10.
McPeek, M.A., DeAngelis, D.L., Shaw, R.G., Moore, A.J., Rausher, Strong, D.R.,  Ellison, 
A.M., Barrett, L., Rieseberg, L., Breed, M.D., Sullivan, J., Osenberg, C.W., Holyoak, 
M., Elgar, M.A. (2009): The golden rule of reviewing. Am. Natur. 173:  E155-E158.
Navarro, L., Sánchez, J.M., Cortina, J., Jiménez-Eguizábal, L. (2010): En manos de la bue-
na voluntad de los colegas… En nuestras manos. Ecosistemas 19: 1-7.
Perry, G., Mackessey, S., Sites, J., Ford, N. (2007): The ongoing privatization of public uni-
versities. Iguana 14: 257-258.
Sheppard, C.( 2000): The poor referee. Marine Poll. Bull. 40: 1-2.
Thompson, F.R., III. (2010): The Golden rule of reviewing. J. Wildlife Managem. 74: 191-
192.
Ware, M. (2011): Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Rev. Inform. 
Network. 16: 23-53.


The “Peer” in “Peer Review”

Open Access Repository

97Phyllomedusa - 10(2), December 2011EditorialThe “Peer” in “Peer Review”Gad Perry1, Jaime Bertoluci2, Bruce Bury3, Robert W. Hansen4, Robert Jehle5, John Measey6, Brad R. Moon7, Erin Muths8, and Marco A. L. Zuffi9,*1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; Journal of Herpetology.2 Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; Phyllomedusa.3 USGS, Corvallis, OR, USA; Herpetological Conservation and Biology.4 Clovis, CA, USA; Herpetological Review.5 University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK; Herpetological Journal.6 University of the Western Cape, South Africa; African Journal of Herpetology.7 University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA, USA; Herpetologica.8 USGS, Fort Collins, CO, USA; Journal of Herpetology.9 Museum Natural History, University of Pisa, Italy; Acta Herpetologica.* With the exception of the first author, authors are arranged in alphabetical order.Peer review is the best available mechanism for assessing and improving the quality of scientific work. As herpetology broadens its disciplinary and geographic boundaries, high-quality external review is ever more essential. We are writing this editorial jointly because the review process has become increasingly difficult. The resulting delays slow publication times, negatively affect performance reviews, tenure, promotions, and grant proposal success. It harms authors, agencies, and institutions (Ware 2011).In our review process, editors assign each new submission to a knowledgeable Associate Editor, who seeks sufficient expert reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. In recent years, Editors have commented on the increasing difficulty of finding willing reviewers, and have speculated on its causes, often citing selfishness (Sheppard 2000, McPeek et al. 2009, Hochberg 2010, Navarro et al. 2010, Thompson 2010, Ghazoul 2011). There are certainly people who regularly decline requests to review, but our experience agrees with Ware (2011) that they are the exception. Why, then, is the problem getting worse?Most reviewers reside at academic institutions and government agencies facing budget cuts, unfunded “accountability” measures, and increasing privatization and commercialization (Perry et al. 2007). Writing an informed and constructive review takes considerable work. As professional responsibilities increase each year, the time and recognition for such unpaid work diminish. Moreover, potential reviewers are sometimes instructed to minimize their service activities (Garrison 2005). Yet competent peer review is as vital a part of the scientific process as any experiment.Our goal is to provide a publication process that is objective, efficient, timely, and pleasant. We are exploring various options for addressing the problem, and we need your help. Please help us by taking the following steps:If you are asked to review a manuscript, please respond quickly. This will shorten the process. Delays in review often begin with a tardy response to the request for a review. Please do your best to say “Yes.” If you do, please make sure to meet the deadline or explicitly request an extension to a specific date. We are increasingly facing delays because of chasing colleagues who missed the deadline, sometimes by many weeks.Phyllomedusa 10(2):97–98, 2011© 2011 Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - ESALQ - USP ISSN 1519-139798Phyllomedusa - 10(2), December 2011If you are not able to do the review, do not have the time to provide an in-depth review, or do not think you can meet the deadline, then please say “No” right away and suggest one or more alternate potential reviewers.Involve your advanced graduate students in the review process while maintaining the confidentiality of the process. Explain that this is an important part of their professional duties. Advocate to administrators the value of reviewer service at every opportunity, explain that it is a performance-related part of your job that helps keep you up-to-date, and ask for it to be part of your annual evaluation.These are simple steps, but they will greatly help reduce delay and frustration. Many thanks in advance,Your editors ReferencesGarrison, C. 2005. Exploring new faculty orientation: The good, the bad, and making it better. Essays in Education 13: 1–9.Ghazoul, J. 2011. Reviewing peer review. Biotropica 43: 1–2.Hochberg, M. E. 2010. Youth and the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 3: 8–10.McPeek, M. A., D. L. DeAngelis, R. G. Shaw, A. J. Moore, M. D. Rausher, D. R. Strong, A. M. Ellison, L. Barrett, L. Rieseberg, M. D. Breed, J. Sullivan, C. W. Osenberg, M. Holyoak, and M. A. Elgar. 2009. The golden rule of reviewing. American Naturalist 173: E155–E158.Navarro, L., J.M. Sánchez, J. Cortina, and L. Jiménez-Eguizábal. 2010. En manos de la buena voluntad de los colegas… En nuestras manos. Ecosistemas 19: 1–7.Perry, G., S. Mackessey, J. Sites, and N. Ford. 2007. The ongoing privatization of public universities. Iguana 14: 257–258.Sheppard, C. 2000. The poor referee. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 1–2.Thompson, F.R., III. 2010. The golden rule of reviewing. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 191–192.Ware, M. 2011. Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking 16: 23–53.

The "Peer" in "Peer Review"

Cadernos Espinosanos (E-Journal)

English

Gad Perry

Jaime Bertoluci

Bruce Bury

Robert Hansen

Robert Jehle

Brad Moon

Erin Muths

Marco Zuffi

Directory of Open Access Journals

ISSN 1827-9635 (print) © Firenze University Press ISSN 1827-9643 (online) www.fupress.com/ahEditorialThe “Peer” in “Peer Review”Gad Perry1, Jaime Bertoluci2, Bruce Bury3, Robert W. Hansen4, Robert Jehle5, John Measey6, Brad R. Moon7, Erin Muths8, Marco A.L. Zuffi9,*1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; Journal of Herpetology2 Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; Phyllomedusa3 USGS, Corvallis, OR, USA; Herpetological Conservation and Biology4 Clovis, CA, USA; Herpetological Review5 University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK; Herpetological Journal6 University of the Western Cape, South Africa; African Journal of Herpetology7 University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA, USA; Herpetologica8 USGS, Fort Collins, CO, USA; Journal of Herpetology9 Museum Natural History, University of Pisa, Italy; Acta HerpetologicaPeer review is the best available mechanism for assessing and improving the quality of scientific work. As herpetology broadens its disciplinary and geographic boundaries, high-quality external review is ever more essential. We are writing this editorial jointly because the review process has become increasingly difficult. The resulting delays slow publication times, negatively affect performance reviews, tenure, promotions, and grant proposal suc-cess. It harms authors, agencies, and institutions (Ware, 2011)In our review process, editors assign each new submission to a knowledgeable Asso-ciate Editor, who seeks sufficient expert reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. In recent years, Editors have commented on the increasing difficulty of finding willing reviewers, and have speculated on its causes, often citing selfishness (Ghazoul, 2011; Hochberg, 2010; McPeek et al., 2009; Navarro et al., 2010; Sheppard, 2000; Thompson, 2010). There are certainly people who regularly decline requests to review, but our experience agrees with Ware (2011) that they are the exception. Why, then, is the problem getting worse?Most reviewers reside at academic institutions and government agencies facing budget cuts, unfunded “accountability” measures, and increasing privatization and commerciali-zation (Perry et al., 2007). Writing an informed and constructive review takes consider-able work. As professional responsibilities increase each year, the time and recognition for such unpaid work diminish. Moreover, potential reviewers are sometimes instructed to minimize their service activities (Garrison, 2005). Yet competent peer review is as vital a part of the scientific process as any experiment.* With the exception of the first author, authors are arranged in alphabetical orderG. Perry et al.Our goal is to provide a publication process that is objective, efficient, timely, and pleasant. We are exploring various options for addressing the problem, and we need your help. Please help us by taking the following steps:If you are asked to review a manuscript, please respond quickly. This will shorten the process. Delays in review often begin with a tardy response to the request for a review. Please do your best to say “Yes.” If you do, please make sure to meet the deadline or explicitly request an extension to a specific date. We are increasingly facing delays because of chasing colleagues who missed the deadline, sometimes by many weeks.If you are not able to do the review, do not have the time to provide an in-depth review, or do not think you can meet the deadline, then please say “No” right away and suggest one or more alternate potential reviewers.Involve your advanced graduate students in the review process while maintaining the confidentiality of the process. Explain that this is an important part of their professional duties. Advocate to administrators the value of reviewer service at every opportunity, explain that it is a performance-related part of your job that helps keep you up-to-date, and ask for it to be part of your annual evaluation.These are simple steps, but they will greatly help reduce delay and frustration. Many thanks in advance,Your editors REFERENCESGarrison, C. (2005): Exploring new faculty orientation: The good, the bad, and making it better. Essays in Education 13: 1-9.Ghazoul, J. (2011): Reviewing Peer Review. Biotropica 43: 1-2.Hochberg, M.E. (2010): Youth and the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ideas Ecol. Evol. 3: 8-10.McPeek, M.A., DeAngelis, D.L., Shaw, R.G., Moore, A.J., Rausher, Strong, D.R.,  Ellison, A.M., Barrett, L., Rieseberg, L., Breed, M.D., Sullivan, J., Osenberg, C.W., Holyoak, M., Elgar, M.A. (2009): The golden rule of reviewing. Am. Natur. 173:  E155-E158.Navarro, L., Sánchez, J.M., Cortina, J., Jiménez-Eguizábal, L. (2010): En manos de la bue-na voluntad de los colegas… En nuestras manos. Ecosistemas 19: 1-7.Perry, G., Mackessey, S., Sites, J., Ford, N. (2007): The ongoing privatization of public uni-versities. Iguana 14: 257-258.Sheppard, C.( 2000): The poor referee. Marine Poll. Bull. 40: 1-2.Thompson, F.R., III. (2010): The Golden rule of reviewing. J. Wildlife Managem. 74: 191-192.Ware, M. (2011): Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Rev. Inform. Network. 16: 23-53.

The "Peer" in "Peer Review"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Firenze University Press: E-Journals

Open Access Repository

Cadernos Espinosanos (E-Journal)

Directory of Open Access Journals

Directory of Open Access Journals