AGU has deliberately made the pages of Eos open to differing views. Two authors recently questioned whether AGU went too far in publishing a criticism by the Council of American Quaternary Society of the actions of another society. Should AGU have published the AMQUA criticism and the responses to it? What is your opinion?
Over time the pages of Eos have contained strong and diverse viewpoints on the journal review process. Much of the debate has centered on whether it should be mandatory or voluntary that the identity of the reviewer be known to the author of the article. This or other ways to change the review process are the subject of this Eos Discussion.
Items on this topic appeared in the following issues of Eos:
1 Jul 2003 | 29 Jul 2003 | 23 Sep 2003 | 30 Sep 2003 | 23 Dec 2003 | 30 Dec 2003 | 20 Apr 2004
Journals in the Earth and space sciences have traditionally been limited to scientific theory, observations, and conclusions. Doron Nef tested this view by approaching 13 journals about the publication of a nontraditional article and described the response in Eos. He said, “as natural scientists, our job should be to explain the nature, not only as far as it advances the natural sciences but also as far as it advances philosophy, religion, and other branches of the social sciences.” Others have suggested that journal articles should be allowed to comment on public policy issues. This online discussion is your opportunity to opine on the extent to which scientific journals should extend their traditional scopes - or not.
As published in Eos: 26 September 2006 | 17 October 2006