Animal Science Abstract
Editorial
The main responsibility of any Journal Editor is to uphold scientific standards and help authors get into print the results of good quality research. Ours is not an inhibitory function but a facilitating one. Through peer and technical review we aim to identify material which is worthy of publication and help put it into the best shape for future readers to benefit from the new understanding, wisdom or data which authors have to report. So, editors, referees and authors should interact constructively to help good science on its way into the public arena.It goes without saying that authors are a rather important part of this process. It is the author's job to be hyper-critical of ideas and concepts before ever contemplating the start of an experiment. It is the author's job to be finicky about choice of methods so that he/she is completely confident that the characteristics which are measured really are those which he/she set out to measure. Where experiments are being reported, it is the author's job to have designed those experiments in such a way that the issues under study are clearly identified in the design structure and can be critically evaluated by appropriate statistical techniques. It is the author's job to report what was done critically and candidly and to show penetrating analysis and interpretation of the outcomes of the work. It's also the author's job to present the whole report in a style which is not only scientifically rigorous (and oh what a frisson of editorial delight there is when this tidy package comes with at least some element of prosaic elegance). Finally, it is the author's job to have read the directions to contributors and to have followed them.
With all that done, the editors and referees job then becomes rather easy. We are presented with a justified piece of scientific endeavour, properly executed and reported, a joy to read and in perfect form for immediate inclusion in the Journal.
For many readers, it may come as a surprise that this idyll of scientific nirvana is rarely achieved, at least in my humble experience (either as author or editor!). Just about all the papers that I handle go back to the author for reasonable amounts of revision (sometime two or three times) before they are accepted (if not already rejected). I believe this is a shared experience with many editors.
Why should this be? Is our editorial policy too pernickety or are authors too careless, either in the conduct of their work or in its reporting? Is the rush to publish so great that niceties of detail are overlooked in the expectation that the kindly editor and referee will do the polishing which really should have been done at home before the paper was put in the envelope or sent off as an electronic attachment?
Carelessness in science is not good practice. A recent incident in the UK where samples of sheep brain and cattle brain became confused (in a BSE study) was a widespread public embarrassment and cast an aspect of animal science in a very poor light indeed. The reason this particular mix-up caught the public spotlight was because of the high public and political profile which surrounds BSE research in the UK. Most bits of slapdash science do not get into the public gaze but, as an editor, one sees perhaps too many slapdash errors which should have been caught at source.
In the Ruminant Section of the Journal the Editorial team has been discussing a number of issues which have cropped up with recent papers. One is in the reporting of analytical methods. Some assays (estimation of neutral-detergent fibre in foodstuffs is a good example) are not absolute (i.e. the entity under measurement does not have a discrete chemical identity) and so variations in method will actually identify a slightly different mix of chemical moieties even though the descriptor is the same (e.g. NDF in this particular example). This raises the issue as to whether or not we should adopt, for the Journal, a set of agreed reference methods for analysed characteristics which fall into this category. It would then be a requirement that precise details of variations from the reference method were included in the text (rather than cross-referenced to other publications which, in my experience, all too frequently do not give the levels of detail which would allow one to replicate a method exactly). As an editor I wonder if this is an issue which concerns the readership - or is it just an editorial nicety that 'the real world' can cope with quite easily?
Another issue of concern is in the application of statistical analysis without thought. One of the commonest examples here would be the case of an experiment described as a factorial design with a number of treatments which, in reporting, includes multiple comparisons by t test. There are a number of good statistical tests and the journal has its own guidelines on good (and inappropriate) statistical practices. The 'structured design with multiple comparisons' example is clearly identified as 'inappropriate' in our own guidelines. It is perhaps time to update those statistical guidelines and to publish them occasionally in the Journal to act as both support and reminder to authors on good practice. Perhaps there is an enthusiastic statistician who will read this editorial and volunteer immediately to assist the Journal editors by taking on this updating task. If so, please get in touch.
In education spheres it is sometimes (not too frequently I hope) said that schools or universities would run much more smoothly if only it wasn't for the students. Perhaps the same could be said, occasionally, of scientific journals. The whole process would run so much more smoothly if it wasn't for those authors who supply material which was difficult to edit. As we approach the annual meeting of the Animal Science Editorial Board, it is fairly predictable that one item on the Agenda will be to consider how we can improve the editorial process by shortening the interval between receipt of papers and their publication. As editors, we have an important responsibility to service authors as best we can, to support standards and expedite the process. Authors want us to do that. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that, as authors, we have the opportunity to make a major contribution to the process by submitting papers which are novel, well designed, well analysed, elegantly reported and perfectly presented. By so doing, authors can join with editors and referees in expediting publication.
I look forward with bated breath to future deliveries from the Journal office.
John Oldham
Section Leader for Ruminant Nutrition, Behaviour and Production
| Search for papers on a specific subject | |
|---|---|
 |
|