I will second this. As an editor, i went through 8 referees - including all of the authors' suggestions- to find just two. I was supposed to find three, but we gave up at two.
Another, related point: I was at an iucr meeting a few years ago and complained to Howard E, asking him why he was sending me so many mss to review. His reply was: "well, you sent two mss in, and I have to get two reviews for each. So I keep score - for each ms you send, I send two mss to you to review. Otherwise the system doesn't work." I took it to heart and stopped complaining. And try to be more diligent about reviewing. Adrian Goldman On 12 Aug 2011, at 01:46, Phoebe Rice <pr...@uchicago.edu> wrote: > Some people on this list seem to think that reviewers are on the whole lazy > and irresponsible and in need of some sort of public ridicule. > > Please don't forget that reviewing manuscripts, while an important duty for > members of the community, is already in practice a completely thankless > volunteer job. My understanding is that journal editors often have a very > difficult job talking 3 people per paper into acting as reviewers. > > ===================================== > Phoebe A. Rice > Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology > The University of Chicago > phone 773 834 1723 > http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/Faculty_and_Research/01_Faculty/01_Faculty_Alphabetically.php?faculty_id=123 > http://www.rsc.org/shop/books/2008/9780854042722.asp > > > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:42:34 -0500 >> From: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> (on behalf of Jacob Keller >> <j-kell...@fsm.northwestern.edu>) >> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Another paper & structure retracted >> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >> >> Do reviewers ever get taken to task for these things? Don't they share >> at least some of the responsibility? Maybe they should have to give >> their explicit imprimatur, perhaps only after the fact, if published? >> >> JPK >> >> >> >> 2011/8/11 Colin Nave <colin.n...@diamond.ac.uk>: >>> Well this article seems to have been refereed to 11 times so presumably >>> these 11 publications also have to be retracted. I haven't checked the >>> number of citations for each of the 11 publications but articles citing >>> these will also be in doubt. And then ...... >>> >>> It reminds me somewhat of the Erdos number calculation. How many >>> publications are each of us away from this. Is anyone safe. >>> >>> Colin :( >>> >>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David >>> Schuller >>> Sent: 10 August 2011 22:01 >>> To: ccp4bb >>> Subject: [ccp4bb] Another paper & structure retracted >>> >>> Time to fuel up the gossip engines for the approaching weekend: >>> >>> >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096921260800186X >>> >>> RETRACTED: Structure of the Parathyroid Hormone Receptor C Terminus Bound >>> to the G-Protein Dimer Gβ1γ2 >>> Structure, Volume 16, Issue >>> 7<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236269%232008%23999839992%23693753%23FLA%23&_cdi=6269&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000022719&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=492137&md5=9dc4b8953d3fa243dc98e395b6ac590d>, >>> 9 July 2008, Pages 1086-1094 >>> Structure 2QNS withdrawn. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ======================================================================= >>> >>> All Things Serve the Beam >>> >>> ======================================================================= >>> >>> David J. Schuller >>> >>> modern man in a post-modern world >>> >>> MacCHESS, Cornell University >>> >>> >>> schul...@cornell.edu<mailto:schul...@cornell.edu> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ******************************************* >> Jacob Pearson Keller >> Northwestern University >> Medical Scientist Training Program >> cel: 773.608.9185 >> email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu >> *******************************************
