This is a good read - Open access: The true cost of science publishing The author mentioned the rejection rate for a couple of different journals in the body of the article. I dont know if most of the journals advertise their acceptance/rejection rate, but I would love it if they did.
Thanks for posting this. I've never submitted an article for publication so I had no idea this was a growing sector of the industry. (And yeah, it would be nice to have more articles available for free to the general public, but that's a whole other topic.)
PS. Spider woman suit underwater... you win.
Thanks I've also been Santa for Christmas, complete with beard over my full-face mask.
Here's a link to the editorial board of Animal Biotelemetry—not exactly a bunch of slackers, if you know anything about research of large pelagics. And here's an explanation from Editor-in-Chief Peter Klimley about the journal's purpose, why the articles are available to everyone, etc.
What made me wonder about Animal Biotelemetry is not only that it didn't show up in my university's library database (which is why I put in an inquiry to the science librarian), but also the fact that they are a pay-to-publish journal. With some exceptions, authors have to pay a fee in order to be published. This put up a red flag for me--do they publish everyone who pays the fee? (Does this happen with any of the known and respected journals?) I didn't see anything that addressed this particular facet, and if it's not the case, it would be nice to see something that specifically says that does not happen. I understand that circumstantial evidence does not imply guilt, but again, I want to address the red flag.
And speaking of red flags, that's really what the whole Ocearch thing is about. When I heard about an organization of non-scientist fishermen who were catching sharks, invasively placing tags on them, and basing a television show around this, that didn't sound good. So I decided to look into it and found the scientific articles they cited were not actual peer-reviewed articles from legitimate journals, their not-exactly-true claims of answering to IACUCs, etc. Again, while I cannot find any concrete evidence that Ocearch is "bad" or lying or whatever you want to call it, those red flags are waving around like crazy. Personally, I do not trust Ocearch and I do wish there was a way they could be stopped.
If you'd like to read a review of the Domeier-edited book, you could try this review in Copeia. I haven't read it.
I did read it, and it's pretty much just a general book review. They say these papers came from an international white shark symposium in Honolulu in 2010, but there is no information on any peer-review that may have happened.
By the way, don't assume that an article is better or its findings more "legitimate" just because it appears in a big-name journal such as Nature or Science.
An article is only as good as its science, and sometimes even good science goes out of date as new information comes around. But unfortunately, there is at least some bad science out there (not necessarily to deceive, although I'm sure that happens, but done using bad methods) and peer-reviewed journals are one sort of protection against that sort of thing. When you have a panel of scientists critiquing the work of others it helps eliminate some of the bad studies. Which is why I (and many/most scientists) are such sticklers for legitimate peer-review. I (and many/most scientists)
am willing to change my mind in light of quality evidence to the contrary.