Re: GSA Vanity Press for Paleontologists

[kaesler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Roger L. Kaesler)]

Dear colleagues,

Peter Sheehan has raised the question about the GSA's notion of charging
$15 to submit an abstract.  My understanding is that they attempt to
justify this by saying that few abstracts are rejected.  If that is so,
then perhaps the abstracts volume does amount to little more than a vanity
press.  Perhaps a better scheme would be for all of us who are members of
the GSA to demand that standards be elevated.  If fewer papers were
accepted, there could be fewer sessions and we could all get on with the
important business of the conventions, which is rarely about hearing
papers.  Does anyone know what percentage of papers in paleontology are
accepted by GSA for presentation at the annual meetings?

On the other hand, Peter's suggestion for citing papers irks me.  As an
editor, I see little to be gained by publishing intentionally incorrect
citations to the literature.  Bibliography is tough enough when people try
to publish correct information.  To editorialize via bibliographic
citations is certain to be counterproductive.

Best wishes,

Roger

--

Roger L. Kaesler
Paleontological Institute
The University of Kansas
121 Lindley Hall
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2911
(913) 864-3338 = telephone
(913) 864-5276 = FAX

It is our job as editors to find meaning where none was intended.