[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Life Beyond the Cladogram



pwillis@ozemail.com.au wrote:

>From my experience, don't even think of submitting a
paper to JVP unless it has a cladogram.<

This seemed a bit of an overstatement to me, so I looked back at JVP Vol. 18
(so far, as I haven't received December yet), and came up with the following
numbers, based on all papers, rapid communications, and notes, as well as
Memoirs 4 and 5:
I found that only 26 out of 61 publications in JVP for those three quarters
included cladograms, considerably less than half. So, it can hardly be the
case that a cladistic analysis, regardless of its merits, has become a
prerequisite for acceptance by JVP.

Of course, phylogenetics aren't directly relevent to a large number of the
publications in question (studies of chronostratigraphy or paleoecology, for
example) and including those in my total (61 publications) does skew the
sample a bit. But even among papers describing new taxa or revising old taxa,
I found a fair number of papers that did not include cladograms. I'm going to
break these figures down to only those papers that could conceivably have a
need for cladistics and see how the figures look then. But, suffice it to say,
that you can get a paper accepted by JVP without.

Cait Kiernan