Frontiers-Fail

Aus irgendwelchen Gründen bin ich auf einen Verteiler der Open-Access-Zeitschriftengruppe FRONTIERS geraten. Auf diesem Verteiler landete irrtümlich ein individuelles Reviewangebot (siehe unten) und nun konnte man das Schauspiel beobachten, dass sich einer der Wissenschaftler nach dem anderen in der Mailingliste meldete, um mitzuteilen, dass er nicht gemeint sei (obwohl das eigentlich evident und schon durch die ersten eintreffenden Mails hinreichend dokumentiert war).

Nur der Abesender hat es wohl noch nicht mitgekriegt, sonst hätte er sich für seinen Lapsus entschuldigt. Aber da Wissenschaftler Wissenschaft betreiben sollen und nicht Medienkunde (als ob man nach über 15 Jahren Internet erwarten dürfte, dass man weiß, was ein Mailverteiler/Mailingliste ist!), dürfte das die Prozession der Antwortmails auch nicht stoppen. Bislang waren es 13 (deren Absender natürlich wie ich auch alle vorhergehenden Mails erhalten haben).

Medienkompetenz sieht anders aus.

Dear Joachim Schachtner

Considering your great expertise I would like to invite you to review the below appended article submitted to Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience.

Please kindly communicate your decision within 3 days by logging into your Frontiers account and selecting “My Frontiers => Review Editor => Review Invitations Received”.

If you accept, you will then have 10 days to submit your review.

Website access:
http://www.frontiersin.org

Please click here to view the invitation;

Please click here to accept the invitation;

Please click here to decline the invitation;

With best regards,

Dr. Randolf Menzel
Associate Editor, Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
http://www.frontiersin.org

***************
Abstract

Title: Sex-specific odorant receptors of the Tobacco Hornworm Manduca sexta

Authors: Ewald Grosse-Wilde, Regina Stieber, Maike Forstner, Jürgen Krieger, Dieter Wicher, Bill S. Hansson

Article type: Original Research Article

Abstract:As odor information plays a vital role in the life of moths, their olfactory sense has evolved
into a highly specific and sensitive apparatus relevant to reproduction and survival. The key
players in the detection of odorants are olfactory receptor (OR) proteins. Here we identify
four OR-encoding genes differentially expressed in the antennae of males and females of the
sphingid moth Manduca sexta. Two male-specific receptors (MsexOR-1 and MsexOR-4)
show great resemblance to other male moth pheromone ORs. The putative pheromone
receptors are co-expressed with the co-receptor involved in general odorant signal
transduction, the DmelOr83b homolog MsexOR-2. One female-specific receptor (MsexOR-5)
displays similarities to BmorOR-19, a receptor in Bombyx mori tuned to the detection of the
plant odor linalool.

***************
Information about the Frontiers Review

The pillars of the Frontiers Review are:
– Fairness and Transparency
– Excellence and Efficiency

This includes that the reviewer’s identity is revealed at the end of the review process and you will be acknowledged for your work and contribution on the publication.

Please note, that you will remain anonymous throughout the entire review process. If irresolvable conflicts arise you may chose to withdraw from the review process and in such case you will remain anonymous. However, if the paper gets accepted for publication and no conflicts arose that led to your withdrawal, your contribution will be acknowledged on the publication.

The steps for performing your Frontiers review are as follows:

1. Independent Review
“Independent Review” means that you perform your own independent evaluation of the submitted work. At this time point you will not be able to see the reviews of other reviewers and you cannot yet interact with the authors. During the Independent Review you
– fill in the standard review questionnaire online in the Frontiers Review Forum.

2. Interactive Review
Once the Associate Editor activates the Interactive Review you may interact directly with the authors and other reviewers. The goal of the Interactive Review is to facilitate convergence of opinions in an efficient way:
– You can reply to comments (both authors as well as other reviewers).
– Once you feel that all of your comments/problems raised were addressed sufficiently by the authors you “Finish Your Review”?. This signals the Associate Editor that you have finalized your review.
– In case of irresolvable conflicts you may withdraw form the review (in which you remain anonymous) and/or the Associate Editor may invite more reviewers until the opinions converge.

For more information on the Frontiers Review please read the Review Guidelines:
(http://www.frontiersin.org/reviewguidelines)



Diesen Blogbeitrag zitieren
Klaus Graf (2010, 20. April). Frontiers-Fail. Archivalia. Abgerufen am 24. Februar 2024, von https://doi.org/10.58079/bsh3

Autor: Klaus Graf

Historiker und Archivar, Blogger

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search