Good morning all
This is as much a question as a statement - have you noticed a decline
in editorial standards at "Emu" since it joined the CSIRO stable? ...
and if so, what do you think should be done about it?
The paper which contains the description of a new owl (Ninox sumbaensis)
without a 'real' holotype as we know it is a recent example (Emu 102(3):
223-231). The general standard of proof reading (lots of typos) is
hardly an international journal exemplar. The partial Americanisation
via spell-checker (Microsoftisation?) is inconsistent, if not just
sloppy (eg. Sulfur-crested Cockatoo and Grey Fantail - why not Gray
Fantail if we want to go down that route!).
I'm keen to make a submission to the "Emu" Editorial Advisory Committee
and the Managing Editor to highlight the slipping standards, and offer
ways of arresting the decline or turning it around. Volunteering to
proof read might be a trivial but helpful contribution.
Send your thoughts directly to me rather than the list - I'll collate
them & provide a summary later on.
L.
=================================
Lawrie Conole
Senior Zoologist
Ecology Australia Pty. Ltd.
Flora and Fauna Consultants
88B Station Street
FAIRFIELD VIC 3078 Australia
E-mail:
Internet: http://www.ecologyaustralia.com.au/
Ph: (03) 9489 4191; Mob: (0419) 588 993
Fax: (03) 9481 7679
ABN 83 006 757 142
NOTE: This message may contain privileged and/or confidential
information intended for addressees only. Please do not copy or forward
without permission.
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
