[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Martin 2004 critique
On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:41:47 -0500 Tim Williams
> I agree that it is a dreadful paper. However, I don't think this is
> example of how the "system failed". The same issue of _Acta
> Sinica_ also features an article by Sereno that argues that birds
> evolved from dinosaurs (and so *are* dinosaurs). The editors were
> just trying to be even-handed.
I don't know.....something about the whole process just doesn't seem
right to me.
Sereno's paper cannot (and indeed, should not) be the "White-Out" for
Martin's factual errors. That is what reviewers are for. In his roll as
the opposition, Martin must at the very least communicate on common
ground with Sereno. That means getting the basic facts straight. If the
proponent and the opponent cannot agree on even the most basic facts,
then the opinions that sprout from those facts are meaningless. Mickey
M. found a butt load of errors, too many in my opinion to just ignore for
the sake of a good debate.
IMO, allowing Martin to publish an error-ridden paper, simply as a
bookend to Sereno's well written paper, cheats the peer review process.
I really like Dr. Martin. I have chatted with him briefly on a couple
occasions years ago, and I found him to be a funny, personable
intelligent guy. And I have heard that he is a great paleontology
instructor. But I am baffled as to why journal editors cut him so much
slack. I hope this post doesn't come across as me beating up on him.
This is all about the editors, not about Martin.
Enough of my ranting. I'm off to get slurp some suds and scarf some
<pb> (who has seen the Red Marker Of Death pass over some of his own
p.s. Speaking of factual errors.....Anybody see the latest Milk
commercials on T.V.? Pretty funny stuff, in spite of exhibiting a total
ignorance of the ranges of organisms within the geologic time scale.