Re: GSA Vanity Press for Paleontologists -Reply

From
Date
Roger Kaesler asked about acceptance rates of papers for GSA.  When
I first served on the GSA Joint Technical Program Committee (in 1987),
we were instructed to reject 17% of the abstracts (I believe that was the
percentage).  During my last year on the committee, 1987, we were told
that the facilities were large enough and we could accept all abstracts if
we so desired.  We did reject some, I believe, based on qualilty, but did
not scrutinize abstracts nearly as closely as we had previously.
I don't know what procedures have been followed in more recent
years.--Tricia Kelley

>>> Roger L. Kaesler <kaesler@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU> 03/05/97
11:53am >>>
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.