Entomological Review

To be honest, I feel a little strange, because I usually have no problems with answers from there. You write to Boris Alexandrovich Korotyaev at baris@zin.ru?

Probably, you can also ask a question to the President of REO Andrey Vitimovich Selikhovkin (a.selikhovkin@mail.ru). He is not directly involved in the journal, but I think he can forward the question to B. A. Korotyaev.

Friends, what's going on with the Entomological Review again?
I've been trying to get in touch for six months, but my email is silent. I have two articles sent there (one from 2013). Probably, I will never make such a mistake again-despite the " vak " of the magazine, everything is very slow, my nerves are starting to give up.

Yes, I wrote to the top address. The last answer was that my article is going to the next issue (the first one), and the second article is still being reviewed. But after that - silence... Maybe I should write from another email address? You never know, spam filter and all that...

After a while, you can politely repeat the question. Anything can happen - something gets lost in the mail. Maybe the reviewer is slow/sick/dead... Write and ask questions.

Yes, I wrote to the top address. The last answer was that my article is going to the next issue (the first one), and the second article is still being reviewed. But after that - silence... Maybe I should write from another email address? You never know, spam filter and all that...

I politely repeated the question five times after a while. There is no answer in principle.
Maybe I didn't make a face.
I am beginning to strongly doubt that I personally need my REO membership. I can publish perfectly well abroad, without any problems, and I can't publish in the main print organ of my society.
It's very sad.

Write to Selikhovkin

I politely repeated the question five times after a while. There is no answer in principle.
Maybe I didn't make a face?
.....It's very sad.

Yes, " Entom. obozrenie " has never shone with the quality of the selection of published works, and recently it has simply degraded on many fronts. There are articles that I would not take to a publication of this level, but would send to a local local history collection.
The situation when an article has been lying idle for many years, and no intelligible answer can be obtained, I think, is due to the fact that this section of entomology is under the full control of either a member of the editorial board, or an "irreplaceable" reviewer who has set a goal to "keep out" everything that is beyond his understanding, at the same time, it cannot convincingly prove the poor quality of work. And who "out there" can review bulavousykh? The extremely narrow circle of these losers is well known.
And Selikhovkin will not help here. He is "not a specialist" in this group .

By the way, now the English version of EA is an independent journal and now articles in English are published there. In my opinion, this messed up everything ...

I wrote to Selikhovkin, and yesterday I received a reply that they would contact me
soon.
It is strange that Korotyaev is silent. The last time I wrote to him was yesterday.
In general, I really don't like all this. I do not mind if my manuscript is "wrapped up", even if without a normal explanation (not so long ago I received such a "review" from Lukhtanov on one of my articles for the Zoological Journal - "not suitable for printing because it is not suitable for printing" - then I drew the attention of the editorial board to this and asked never review my articles with Lukhtanov again) - but I think this can still be done faster than in five years.

I wrote to Selikhovkin and received a reply yesterday that they would contact me
soon... It is strange that Korotyaev is silent...... I (not so long ago I received such a "review" from Lukhtanov ....

Well, here you are. Everything is so.
But Selikhovkin and Korotyaev won't go into someone else's diocese. And in this case, it is necessary to express distrust to an inadequate reviewer. And probably call him to account via FANO

Why do I need all this mouse work? FANO, domino... They don't want to print here - there are a lot of great magazines abroad that do it quickly, efficiently and without hemorrhoids. In our case, everything is banal, there are only 3 reasons:

1. A "diocese" of one or two specialists who do not want to let "extra" people into their field of research (for a huge country, this is more than strange, but it is true).

2. Narcissism of the same specialists (you need to lick your ass a little to be "in favor" - which I will never do; it is more likely that I will send you on an erotic walking trip, and even kick you for speed).

3. VAK. The journal is on the VAKOV list, and accordingly, the editorial board is constantly forced to publish "dissertators", and" ordinary REO members " who have no connections in the journal for original and worthwhile research.

It is sad.

... In our case, everything is banal, there are only 3 reasons:

1. A "diocese" of one or two specialists who do not want to let "extra" people into their field of research (for a huge country, this is more than strange, but it is true).

2. Narcissism of the same specialists (you need to lick your ass a little to be "in favor" - which I will never do; it is more likely that I will send you on an erotic walking trip, and even kick you for speed).

3. VAK. The journal is on the VAKOV list, and accordingly, the editorial board is constantly forced to publish "dissertators", and" ordinary REO members " who have no connections in the journal for original and worthwhile research.

It is sad.

1) In the case of diaries, this is true. But if you submit an article at night, then there will be other more adequate, well-known "curators".
2) In this case (in the" diocese "of diaries), this specialist himself has already become, if not quite an outcast, then a "narcissist". After all, no one but him and his drinking buddies ... sorry, "partners", has been published in the EA for a long time. Because there are plenty of better alternatives. It got to the point where, for example, the rules for authors of Eversmannia forbid using "their" taxonomy as archaic and obscurantist.
3) Well, father, do you really have to complain about the lack of connections?

The situation seems to have cleared up, Korotyaev replied. As it turned out, two assistant editors refused to perform their duties in the EO of the follower, respectively, he simply drowned in correspondence. Let's hope that the speed of this problem will be resolved.

The situation seems to have cleared up, Korotyaev replied. As it turned out, two assistant editors refused to perform their duties in the EO of the follower, respectively, he simply drowned in correspondence. Let's hope that the speed of this problem will be resolved.

Really? Such a huge queue to publish there? And I wonder if there are "assistant editors" in other similar magazines? Anyway, the log is coming out. This seems to be an excuse from the same opera that was previously given by Musolin - "the reviewer fell ill or died"

In general, update.

After 4 years of waiting for one and 3-for the second (the last one was sent to me only today "review" - in fact, my own file with edits by the reviewer (obviously), numerous breakfasts (the article is going to the next issue... Today I sent B. Korotyav a letter withdrawing both manuscripts. Enough. I'm tired of it. It's not a magazine, it's a scoop. Where is it seen in the modern world for a manuscript to be reviewed for 3 years? Where is it seen that the manuscript lay without movement for 4 years? Although this is not a record. The previous one was there for 7 years.

I conclude that someone in EA doesn't like me and simply doesn't allow my work to be published. Well, they would have said right away, I'm not a fool... And when such wonderful things are found in the" review"?: what does it mean?

And it's easy to understand. Some people don't give a shit that some people waste their time on all this useless correspondence, waiting and other nonsense.

One thing pleases. I'm a freelance artist, and I'll post somewhere else. I don't need any points, citation indexes, or HAC lists. I work for my own pleasure, and I publish as well. Fight for the pages in the VAKOV EA, dear colleagues =).

Pictures:

012.jpg — (169.34 k)

In general, update.

After 4 years of waiting for one and 3-for the second (for the last one, I just received a "review" today ...
And it's easy to understand. Some people don't give a shit that some people waste their time on all this useless correspondence, waiting and other nonsense.
One thing pleases ... I don't need any points, citation indexes, or HAC lists. I work for my own pleasure, and I publish as well.

I understand you very well. In one modern, respected, quite professional and not slow to publish journal, my manuscript failed for about a year, and only after persistent requests did they bother to answer (not the official editorial board, but a well-known colleague) that the material was rejected. The reason is quite well known, and one of the editorial staff members is very familiar to me. But this attitude is repugnant. It's disgusting. It is not necessary to add that there is no desire to publish articles in this journal. I think that a similar situation is observed in many publishing houses with a limited circle of authorized persons.

This post was edited by kvoncstu - 21.11.2017 14: 27

rhopalocera.com, I wrote to you earlier that this is how it should be.
My good friends are "babochniki" and "zhuchisty" (there are simply no others in our district) They consider Entomological Review to be hopelessly outdated and shameful for Russia. There is a very rich " iconostasis "in the form of an Editorial Board, which consists of 99% of" icons " (including very odious Moscow ones) that have nothing to do with editorial work. Some areas there are simply taken over by local more or less corrupt elements.
And finally, it is surprising that Mr. Musolin has already got into the "butterflies". Does he really understand them so well that he can give you any "comments"?

This post was edited by Nemov - 22.11.2017 09: 03

rhopalocera.com, I wrote to you earlier that this is how it should be.
My good friends are "babochniki" and "zhuchisty" (there are simply no others in our district) They consider Entomological Review to be hopelessly outdated and shameful for Russia. There is a very rich " iconostasis "in the form of an Editorial Board, which consists of 99% of" icons " (including very odious Moscow ones) that have nothing to do with editorial work. Some areas there are simply taken over by local more or less corrupt elements.
And finally, it is surprising that Mr. Musolin has already got into the "butterflies". Does he really understand them so well that he can give you any "comments"?

I consulted him on biorhythms.

Stanislav, it's too bad that the article has been lying around for so long. There are no two opinions here.

However, it was rejected not because someone doesn't like you in EO, but because of the quality of the article. I also wrote to you in 2014 that it is difficult to assess the chances of acceptance. An academic journal will not accept articles about experiments in boxes (even if it understands that there is no equipment, etc.). Maybe without this part, the note would be more complete.

The editor didn't have to write that the text was discussed with me again, and you didn't have to post the screen here. With all the insults, no one canceled the tact.

So now please remove my name from the thank-you list.

Stanislav, it's too bad that the article has been lying around for so long. There are no two opinions here.

However, it was rejected not because someone doesn't like you in EO, but because of the quality of the article. I also wrote to you in 2014 that it is difficult to assess the chances of acceptance. An academic journal will not accept articles about experiments in boxes (even if it understands that there is no equipment, etc.). Maybe without this part, the note would be more complete.

The editor didn't have to write that the text was discussed with me again, and you didn't have to post the screen here. With all the insults, no one canceled the tact.

So now please remove my name from the thank-you list.

In some situations, tact is an anachronism. Especially when people wipe their feet on you. I can't understand why we have everything so through the anus? Everyone is everyone's enemy, everyone has some complaints about everyone, you eat each other. Something is not working normally, gentlemen and ladies schemers and schemers? Haven't had enough of playing scoop yet?

I don't mind if they refuse to publish it. It's common for everyone. But, < flowery folk expression, built in 4 floors>, is it really possible to pull so much?

Tact? I'm in a state of passion: D.

P.S. Both articles were "accepted". If Korotyaev says otherwise, I will post emails from him with denials. There were even promised issues in which articles will go: 3 and 4 for this year. When I didn't see my last name in issue 3, I realized that the editor of EO can be signed as a babbler with all the consequences. Real boys keep their word.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 22.11.2017 15: 04

I was even curious: what kind of boxes are there in which to put entomological experiments is not feng shui?

I was even curious: what kind of boxes are there in which to put entomological experiments is not feng shui?

Probably not specified manufacturer

It seems that T. rhopalocera.com he thinks too well about near-scientific bureaucracy (especially in established greenhouse corporations), believing that someone just doesn't care about his nerves and time and, to a greater or lesser extent, about science, and underestimates the version about possible bureaucratic sabotage of specific (or even vice versa: all but specific ones) authors or specific topics. Certain authors (or authors of certain types of materials) just because if an article is promptly rejected, the author may soon publish it elsewhere, it is often suspended for as long as possible, feeding professionally worked breakfasts and stereotypical scary stories about technical difficulties and clerical confusion (while the other, however, somehow miraculously passes into print). At the same time, no references, even if documented, to promises already made by the editors will stir up shame in people for whom it has never even been an accident. I know this from some other editorial offices and a number of examples (although not with such long terms, but after all, for publications on more " hot " topics and extra months are like extra years here), this technology is absolutely standard. The goal in such cases is that the author understands as late as possible that he is being led by the nose, and, accordingly, that the material either appears in some other place as late as possible, or due to the substantial rottenness over the years of waiting, it does not appear at all-perhaps even being more or less ahead of the time. less similar material for more convenient corporate entities. Of course, deduction is not a sufficient basis in this particular case for choosing only this version - there's no need for that. rhopalocera.com it is better to know - but I also consider it erroneous to completely ignore it, after reading his posts.

It seems that T. rhopalocera.com he thinks too well about near-scientific bureaucracy (especially in established greenhouse corporations), believing that someone just doesn't care about his nerves and time and, to a greater or lesser extent, about science, and underestimates the version about possible bureaucratic sabotage of specific (or even vice versa: all but specific ones) authors or specific topics. Certain authors (or authors of certain types of materials) just because if an article is promptly rejected, the author may soon publish it elsewhere, it is often suspended for as long as possible, feeding professionally worked breakfasts and stereotypical scary stories about technical difficulties and clerical confusion (while the other, however, somehow miraculously passes into print). At the same time, no references, even if documented, to promises already made by the editors will stir up shame in people for whom it has never even been an accident. I know this from some other editorial offices and a number of examples (although not with such long terms, but after all, for publications on more " hot " topics and extra months are like extra years here), this technology is absolutely standard. The goal in such cases is that the author understands as late as possible that he is being led by the nose, and, accordingly, that the material either appears in some other place as late as possible, or due to the substantial rottenness over the years of waiting, it does not appear at all-perhaps even being more or less ahead of the time. less similar material for more convenient corporate entities. Of course, deduction is not a sufficient basis in this particular case for choosing only this version - there's no need for that. rhopalocera.com it is better to know - but I also consider it wrong to completely ignore it, after reading his posts.

I also have such suspicions. And there is a suitable base for this-there were attempts in my youth to publish articles describing some new day butterflies, which were safely rejected, and literally in the same year (if not a month) published by other gentlemen. There are dozens of taxa. After this description of new taxa, I don't show it to anyone until it is published, I only release it where I am 100% sure of the editorial integrity, and I don't flatter myself that some of our butterfly specialists have a conscience.

I also have such suspicions. And there is a suitable base for this -....... I do not flatter myself with hopes that some of our butterfly specialists have a conscience.

How would your materials not end up in some PhD thesis written by a famous dissertation negro from St. Petersburg State University.

how easily you spread such vile accusations... you probably have proof, too... despite the fact that there are only a few entomologists working at St. Petersburg State University.

As if your materials would not end up in some PhD thesis written by a well-known dissertation negro from St. Petersburg State University.

how easily you spread such vile accusations... you probably have proof, too... despite the fact that there are only a few entomologists working at St. Petersburg State University.

I won't speak for all of them, but they stole my taxa.
So the accusations are not groundless.

And given the ridiculous amount of money our entomologists are paid (I spend more on gas per month...), and given the fact that publications for them are an increase to their salary in vain , I don't see anything surprising in this. They survive as best they can.

Not only poor PhD students and associate professors earn extra money by doing this. It happens that very respected doctors and even professors. But only if they are their graduate students who are not able to connect 2 words on their own.

Of course, you are a great expert in the work of the teaching staff of St. Petersburg State University and you all know who writes what to whom... Complain immediately to the prosecutor's office and Sportloto.

Ridiculously simple...

Not only poor PhD students and associate professors earn extra money by doing this. It happens that very respected doctors and even professors. But only if they are their graduate students who are not able to connect 2 words on their own.

Musolin, you know that the prosecutor's office does not understand these subtleties without ixperds. And who are the ixperds? That's right, from the same place as the masterminds and actual authors of bad dissertations.

You guys are writing some shit... ZIN and the Department of Entomology of St. Petersburg State University are among the few schools that train classical entomologists. And the people who work are excellent, always ready to help in everything.

You guys are writing some shit... ZIN and the Department of Entomology of St. Petersburg State University are among the few schools that train classical entomologists. And the people who work are excellent, always ready to help in everything.

But not all and not all...