title: Journal standards.
abstract: Despite its many imperfections, the peer review process is a firmly established quality control system for scientific literature. It gives readers some assurance that the work and views that are reported meet standards that are acceptable to a journal. Maureen Revington's editorial in a recent issue of the Australian Veterinary Journal (Revington2002) gives a good concise warts and all overview of the process and is well worth reading. I have some concerns about several articles in the December 2002 issue of the New Zealand Veterinary Journal (Volume 50, Number 6), devoted to the health and welfare of farmed deer, that relate to extensive citing of non-peer reviewed papers. I can understand the need for information to flow from researchers to the wider community but that need is already satisfied by publications such as the proceedings of the Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association and Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production. Non-peer reviewed papers have been cited in the Journal in the past but never to the extent displayed in this particular issue. It degrades the peer-review process and creates an added burden for reviewers who are forced to grapple with the uncertainties of the science in non-peer reviewed citations. One of my fears is that this process allows science from non peer reviewed articles to be legitimised by its inclusion in a peer reviewed journal and perhaps go on to be accepted as dogma. This is a real danger given the difficulties associated with tracing back to original citations and the increasing volume of scientific literature. It also affords opportunities for agencies to pick up questionable and doubtful science and tout it as support for their products or particular points of view. If deer researchers choose to publish most of their work in proceedings then so be it. However this approach, which seems to becoming increasingly prevalent in the deer sector, is questionable from an established science point of view. For my part, I am increasingly reluctant to spend time reading non-peer reviewed material, despite its appeal. At present there are two distinct baskets for scientific literature, one for non-reviewed articles and another for peer reviewed information. I would sincerely hope that we are not going to need another basket as a halfway house for issues that fall in between that classification.
authors: 5 Kensington Mews, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Jackson