WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • MARCH 2014 5 Editor’s Note I have been in recent discussion with colleagues, most editors of aquaculture journals, about the generally poor quality of manuscripts that are being considered for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Fortunately, as editor of this magazine, representing the gray literature, the quality of papers submitted has been generally good, but quite variable, at least as far as a magazine is concerned. My journal editor colleagues are, however, rather frustrated and are casting about for solutions; some are looking for a collective response. There are many dimensions to the problem and there are no easy answers. One relatively recent development is the push by the Chinese scientific establishment to require scientists to publish in the top journals in their field. Apparently advancement in the Chinese academy is contingent on publication in such journals. Cash bonuses are awarded to scientists that publish in Nature or Science. Needless to say, this creates some perverse incentives that lead to short-cuts of many kinds on the part of contributing authors. Another dimension to the problem is the trickle-down of manuscripts from the top (or specialized) journals to those with lower impact factors or reputation. Leaving aside inherent problems with impact factors, manuscripts that are rejected from the top journals are resubmitted (often with little or no revision) to multiple journals before all options are exhausted. It is not just bad writing, but bad science, that is behind the high rejection rate and the poor quality of submitted manuscripts. Bad writing is really a symptom of the larger problem of bad science. It is truly remarkable that in this day and age, of global communications and a large, generally well-trained cadre of professional scientists worldwide, that basic skills like formulating and executing a research plan are lacking. Furthermore, there is far too much research involving reinventing the wheel, splitting hairs by refining this or that nutrient requirement and not enough creative thinking about major information gaps in the field. The discussion among our group veered from a specific focus on the quality of submitted manuscripts to the broader issue of professional conduct and standards. Again, given that bad writing is a symptom of bad science, how can these standards be raised? One of our group suggested that the problem for aquaculture scientists in developing countries is associated with the lack of support and mentorship by the larger aquaculture research community. Often, aquaculture scientists in developing countries are operating as islands or as part of very small, poorly-funded research groups with a highly hierarchical structure. This scenario is not conducive to professional development. Several of my editor colleagues have conducted seminars and made presentations on how to publish a scientific paper. These are invariably well attended and well received. This topic has been an element of almost every student session at WAS conferences. However, it seems as though this effort has been insufficient at raising the bar of submitted papers. Similar to other gaps between rich and poor nations, the quality of science from developing countries seems to be falling ever farther behind that of more developed, wealthier countries. What can be done? There are doubtless more aquaculture scientists alive now than there ever have been in human history. Like all scientific establishments, the body of knowledge grows and scientists advance in their careers. The senior ranks of aquaculture scientists around the world represent our collective memory and experience. Of course, there is no obligation that these scientists transmit their knowledge and wisdom to a younger generation. However, we often talk about aquaculture sustainability but don’t talk much about the sustainability of aquaculture science, something for which active mentorship is an integral component. Senior aquaculturists must become more involved, especially in developing countries, with the development of their junior colleagues. In a way, this is similar to the cycle of poverty, where the poor tend to stay poor because of entrenched institutional factors. Somehow, scientists must find a way to break the cycle of bad science begetting bad science and improve their performance and skills. One problem within the traditional academic establishment is that students are provided with a technical education but not provided the kind of skills training (generically) that allows them to become good scientists. Many of these issues, such as scientific integrity, cut across every topic in a typical curriculum. Rarely are they dealt with explicitly. Curriculum reform and changes to teaching methods can help address this issue. Returning to my editor colleagues and the specific issue of improving the quality of submitted manuscripts, one option to consider would be the creation of an International Committee of Aquaculture Journal Editors, patterned after other boards established for similar purposes. This mechanism might allow concerted and coordinated action to reach aquaculture scientists. It is clear that the effort must be continuous and sustained for any real change to occur — John A. Hargreaves, Editor-in-Chief Robinson Wins Best Paper Award To entice contributions of high-quality articles describing original work, the WAS Board of Directors has committed to support a “best paper” award for articles published in World Aquaculture magazine. The WAS Awards Committee concurs that the article written by Georgina Robinson will receive the award as the best paper of those published in the four issues of 2013. The article, “A Bright Future for Sandfish Aquaculture,” provided an excellent global overview of sea cucumber aquaculture. Georgina also arranged for the delightful photograph that graced the cover of the March issue. Georgina is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University, working in collaboration with Rhodes University in South Africa. Potential contributors should take note that this award will be ongoing and made annually. Developing Professionalism Among Aquaculture Scientists
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=