I can only give a little time to address this, but "Ferrets" is a very
different entity now than it has been in the past.  For one thing writers
get to review their articles pre-publication now for factual errors which
the editing may have accidently introduced.  Just recently I got to do a
fact check on a new version of a piece about an AFIP project which will
aid the advance of ferret medical knowledge, so I have seen this in
action and it worked easily and beautifully.
 
Early on there were a lot of problems with what came from Fancy: many
errors, lack of author control on what was in the final version of an
article, pieces advising things that were downright dangerous.  Folks
who complained were often told in mildly couched terms to take a hike,
as I was when a medication dose was published that could kill (and I am
not a rude soul).  Yes, it actually, took extended and work time to get
them to even print retraction/corrections back then, since at first even
that was not done.
 
That has thoroughly changed, and I hope the marvelous improvements are
permanent ones.
 
I think that thanks for the improvements go to four sets of people:
 
1. The current editorial team in charge of this publication is heads and
shoulders above past ones.  They actually CARE about the ferrets and
about getting factual information straight.  That is what we want, and
it is what our ferrets need.  These are folks who are real journalists in
all the best senses of the term rather than being folks out for the buck.
 
2. Mary and Eric at "Modern Ferret" showed by example that factual and
accurate publications which demonstrate a real love and commitment for
ferrets were and continue to be demanded by the ferret community.  Without
them there to raise the bar it may have been that the Fancy publishing
house wouldn't have much cared, but Eric and Mary were there to do this
and in that way those two folks helped everyone (including "Ferrets"
since it had to be improved to its current level).
 
3. The writers let Fancy know when they were unhappy about the behavior
of past editorial teams.  Now, with the current team some authors' names
which haven't been seen in while have been once again appearing in recent
months.  An increasingly rich variety of experienced viewpoints will help
us all.
 
4. The public let Fancy know that it needed accuracy and a loving touch.
We set our standards high and it worked, folks.  We got what we needed
because we didn't settle for less.  This is a marketplace story which
shows that over time a committed public can get what it needs if it just
keeps trying in constructive fashions.
[Posted in FML issue 3823]