Crises on coral reefs and in coral reef science in the 21st century
The need for a new peer-review system
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12858375 |
|---|---|
| Authors | PW Sammarco (Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 109-119 |
| Publication date | 2008-08-11 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1611-8014 • E-ISSN: 1863-5415 |
| Publisher | I nt er-R es ea rc h (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.3354/esep00093 |
| OpenAlex | W1995471458 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 5 |
ESEP Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics Contact the journal RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections ESEP 8:109-119 (2008) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00093 AS I SEE IT Crises on coral reefs and in coral reef science in the 21st century: the need for a new peer-review system Paul W. Sammarco Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON), 8124 Hwy. 56, Chauvin, Louisiana 70344, USA *Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Coral reef biota have suffered mass mortality globally in the last 30 yr. Causes include: (1) coral disease, (2) coral bleaching, (3) coastal nutrient enrichment, (4) over-fishing, and (5) mass mortality of grazing echinoids. In this paper, I examine data from a US funding agency, a global funding agency, and abstracting indices, and demonstrate why the peer review system has become dysfunctional under these circumstances. Research funding and the number of funded projects have not kept pace with increases in environmental problems, the increased researcher population and researcher demand, resulting in a chronic support gap. This has undermined trust, mutual support, and free-flow of information, and resulted in a poorly functioning review system. I examine the advantages and disadvantages of masking and the double-blinded review system, and recommend a more transparent review system—the reverse-blind review system (RBRS), utilizing (1) Lack of identity of authors/proponents to reviewers, to promote objectivity, (2) identification of reviewers to the authors/proponents, to promote accountability, (3) utilization of expert ‘panel’ members in grant proposal review, similar to the editorial system of scientific journals, each making direct recommendations to funding agencies, (4) elimination of grant panel meetings to help eliminate input by non-experts and confounding group interactions and assign greater responsibility to funding bodies, and (5) allowing researchers to appeal decisions based on inaccurate or misleading information. Such a system would be fairer to the researchers, enhance research, and increase information exchange. KEY WORDS: Coral · Peer review · Proposals · Manuscripts · Publishing · Funding · Panel · Appeal Full text in pdf format NextCite this article as: Sammarco PW (2008) Crises on coral reefs and in coral reef science in the 21st century: the need for a new peer-review system. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8:109-119. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00093 Export citation Mail this link - Contents Mailing Lists - RSS Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in ESEP Vol. 8, No. 2. Online publication date: October 08, 2008 Print ISSN: 1863-5415; Online ISSN: 1611-8014 Copyright © 2008 Inter-Research
Accountability · Agency (philosophy · Biology · Business · Coral reef · Economics · Environmental resource management · Fishery · Political science · Population · Reef · Social science · Sociology · Coastal and Marine Management · Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies · Law · Ocean Acidification Effects and Responses
| Citations per year | 0.11 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2008 - 2024 (17) |
| Highly cited | No |