Animal Science Abstract
Editorial
In the reasonably long history of this journal and its predecessor (Animal Production, which began in 1960) I am not aware of any editorial tradition. The sudden appearance of this item may therefore be something of a surprise to the readership but I hope it's not an unwelcome one.
It is planned that Editorials will be a regular feature in Animal Science from now on with input from various of the editors - and with the door open to anyone with a point of view to air. This is an opportunity for those with views to express, to express them. As scientists with interests in animals, their function and biology, it is essential that we take an open, and open-minded, stance about our work - especially in those areas which are seen as sensitive. So the opportunity to highlight and comment on issues which are relevant to the development of animal science is an important one. In this sense I would hope to see comments here about the direction which scientific study might take, about the problems and issues which justify resolution, about the acceptability, or necessity, of new methods and techniques, and about the process of scientific reporting itself which is clearly at the heart of journals such as this.
The field of animal science is very wide, both geographically and in the nature of the sciences which contribute to the overall discipline. A quick glimpse at the first paragraph in the Yellow Pages (Instructions for Contributors) which are included in the first part published each year, will immediately show the enormous scope which the journal offers to potential contributing scientists.
In one sense this is a good thing. Our door is open to a very wide range of interests and from anywhere in the world. But perhaps by aiming to be very many things to very many people, we are diluting the impact which this journal can have - and 'impact' in the bibliographic statistical sense is widely seen as important in choosing the appropriate journal in which to publish one's work.
I am naturally cautious about too great a reliance on things such as 'citation indexes' as a measure of a journal's worth. A simple, but somewhat cynical, way to increase the citation index of any journal is for editorial policy to rely completely on the selection of those papers which include in their references only papers which have appeared in the same journal in the last two years. With no attention to scientific content whatsoever, this editorial ploy should enhance citation index substantially (but whether such a policy is sustainable is open to conjecture). In an increasingly competitive world of scientific publications it is, though, appropriate to reflect on the journal policies and practices which will sustain us in our sector as a major reference point for publication into the foreseeable future.
The two key points here clearly are the scientific standards which we set and the publication style we adopt.
On scientific standards, there surely are three criteria by which any paper is judged, novelty, clarity and
reliability.
On two of these points, science perhaps has much in common with the law. Is there a clear case to be answered (a clear hypothesis to be tested)? Has the case been answered beyond reasonable doubt (a robust analysis of a robustly designed experiment)? Where science differs from the law is in the view of precedent. In science, if the work (the case) has already been clearly defined, analysed and answered in a previous trial, what merit is there in publishing what is already known? In case law of course, precedent has a completely different value. Would I be being too hard on some of the submissions which I see as an editor for this journal in describing them as 'derivative' or 'lacking in novelty'? Perhaps somewhat too often I would have to say that this is indeed the case. But is all derivative science bad? No, certainly not. A common example would be in feedstuff evaluation, where a well established technique might be applied to a new food or feeding system with a real addition to knowledge. My issue then, as an editor, is whether the impact of that knowledge is sufficient to justify publication in a journal of the kind which we have in Animal Science. Are such publications good for citation indexes? Will the reputation of the journal grow as a result? Should I, as an editor, be thinking about the impact of a particular publication on the reputation of the journal as much as on the intrinsic value of the science in the paper?
If a journal like Animal Science is to hold and enhance its position as a premier vehicle for the publication of research in our area of science, I have no doubt that the likely impact of a submitted piece of work has to be part of the process for accepting papers. Views will differ as to the number of papers that we publish which fall into the 'worthy but boring' category, but there certainly are some. The dividing line between novelty and repetition is not always clear cut. Animal science in general is something of an integrating discipline and the steps we make forward often come through drawing together a number of strands of previous development and adding a new interpretation, or unit of information with which to clarify an issue. But there is little new in that. Newton famously introduced his Principia Mathematica with a comment about 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. Today, spotting the contributions of giants amongst a plethora of information is not such an easy task.
The world of biology (especially at the level of the molecular sciences) has had a tremendous conceptual impact over the last two decades. We are now entering a phase where it is widely seen that 'component understanding' of detailed level processes need to be put into the context of the ways in which whole organisms function. Our journal has dealt with whole animal biology since its inception and perhaps should now be looking to be at least one of the natural homes for some of the work which will integrate new sciences into understanding of animal function in holistic ways. It would be good to see more papers coming forward which build understanding of holistic processes by standing on the shoulders of some molecular giants.
We should be looking to see papers in our journal which both aid understanding at the holistic level and help target molecular studies to issues of priority.
There is potential here to see various aspects of the 'traditional' animal sciences reborn as they take on the challenge of exploiting and giving context to new kinds of understanding from molecular studies. In breeding and genetics many of the applications are self-evident, in the behavioural sciences one could expect growth in neurophysiological studies, in nutrition a refreshed focus on the basis of differences in nutrient use for growth, reproduction, lactation, etc.
How we balance an editorial enthusiasm for this kind of study to be reported in submissions to this journal, with the more traditional, 'animal performance' orientated papers is a matter for editorial development - and also one for the readership and the 'submitting clientele' to take on board.
The editorial team of Animal Science is looking to enhance enthusiasm for publishing, sharp, well focused work in all aspects of animal science. But the message to authors is that we look to encourage papers in this journal which will take our knowledge forward in an imaginative, novel and robust way.
By setting strong standards and looking to publish papers which truly add to knowledge, we can expect to enhance the impact of our journal in the true meaning of the word. But our approach to scientific standards was just the first of my two points. I look to future editorials to address issues of publication style, as well as to developing other themes.
| Search for papers on a specific subject | |
|---|---|
 |
|