hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: [Aroid-l] Aroideana

Yes Christopher, a well thought out statement.  As a reviewer for many scientific journals in the area of ion channel biology and a former associate editor for the American Journal of Physiology: Cell Physiology, and someone that publishes a reasonable number of manuscripts it is imperative that the person requesting more scientific studies be published either do the science required or collaborate with someone that is sufficiently knowledgeable to carry them out.  If the genera suggested have been published on extensively previously then there needs to be some credible new science that advances the field significantly prior to publication otherwise it is simply an anecdote and not worthy of publication.
While ISI ratings are likely not critical to Aroideana the published articles should still strive to be of the highest scientific merit and thus, as pointed out, a critical review by atleast 2 experts in the field must be obtained and the authors must then rebut or address the critiques of their work.  If they can not address the critiques then the manuscript should be rejected.  If the initial submission is clearly not scientifically sound it should be rejected outright with no chance for revision.  However, like any journal in any field of study the hottest topics (dare I say sexiest) typically make it to press sooner and in larger number as this is what the editors typically strive for to increase the impact of their journal.  Publishing articles that are not widely read is the quickest way to destroy the impact of any journal.
As Christopher points out below someone has to do the science and write up the results of the study and if the main authors submitting their work for publication work in the area of tuberous aroids then that is what subscribers to the journal should expect to read.
So, who is going to write the next article on those long climby thingies :o)
For those up north it is getting chilly.....maybe a hot topic on global warming and how I will someday be able to have Philos growing up the trunks of my trees outside here in zone 6a!!!!!
All the best,
Daniel C. Devor
Ion chanel biophysicist at large
Gibsonia, PA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Aroideana



Speaking as an associate editor for the Journal of Crustacean Biology, journals typically publish the acceptable manuscripts submitted to them. Journals rarely commission papers, unless there is a specific theme for a given issue. Sometimes you get plenty of articles on a variety of topics submitted, but the authors have done a terrible job. When paper is submitted that is in need of revision, it is up to the editor and reviewers to alert the authors, who may or may not want to bother and either submit elsewhere or are demoralized and give up.


My advice is, if you want to see more articles on other taxa, then write them or encourage and/ or collaborate with others to get them written. Remember that whatever you write will get marked up extensively. That is okay. The editorial and review processes are designed to help you to be a better writer. Do not be discouraged if your article gets trashed. The review process is there to make you the author and the journal stronger.


I would also like to mention that our beloved editor always sends pleas for article submissions out on the Aroid List. So, obviously there are needs amongst the readership and the editorship.


Oh, and I like tuberous aroids too, so there. ;-)


Happy days to all,



D. Christopher Rogers

Invertebrate Ecologist/Taxonomist



EcoAnalysts, Inc.

(530) 406-1178

707 Dead Cat Alley

Suite 201

Woodland, CA 95695 USA


Invertebrate Taxonomy

● Invertebrate Ecological Studies

● Bioassessment and Study Design

● Endangered Invertebrate Species

● Invasive Invertebrate Species

● Periphyton/ Phytoplankton

● Zooplankton



Moscow, ID ● Bozeman, MT ● Woodland, CA ● Joplin, MO ● Selinsgrove, PA



Aroid-L mailing list

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement