Re: GSA Vanity Press for Paleontologists

[HASIOTIS STEPHEN TOM <hasiotis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roger:

I sent a message to Peter asking for further explanation of the $15 fee.
In your message, you also state that the fee is for paleontology as well.
Are we to assume that the fee is in-place for only paleontology abstracts?
Does this reflect some bias toward paleontological research and
paleontologists in general?  I, as well as many others, would like to
know more about this...

Cheers,
Steve
__
Stephen T. Hasiotis
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Colorado, Boulder
Campus Box 250
Boulder, CO 80309-0250
TEL: (303) 492-8141; FAX: (303) 492-2606

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Roger L. Kaesler wrote:

> 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.
> 
>