[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feduccia: the same old story...
Ok, wait, now this discussion has gone places I didn't intend. Peer
review, like everything else in science, is done by people, and one of
our traits is to not be perfect. I don't think this paper should be
seen as an indication that the peer review process is in some systemic
way deficient. These things straighten themselves out over time, as
more data and a preponderance of references pile up.
While not major deficienies, I do think the BAND authors have of late
published a few things (one of them was a non peer reviewed editorial
in Auk which doesn't count) that I wish had been more heavily modified
during the review process. I think it's fair to lament that some
unfortunate things sneak through peer review, as it serves as social
reinforcement to avoid the same fallacies inthe future (specifically
quote mining, which I find rather unfortunate). That being said, the
peer review system, flawed though it may be, is by far the best we've
got and until we invent something better it should recieve our support.
Wyoming Dinosaur Center
110 Carter Ranch Rd.
Thermopolis, WY 82443