[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ghosts of New Papers Past
Tim Williams writes:
> > > Feduccia, A. 2009. A colorful Mesozoic menagerie. Trends in
> > > Ecology and Evolution. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.002.
> > >
> > > (Book review of John Long's _Feathered Dinosaurs_.)
> > I take it book reviews are not peer-reviewed...?
> Asking Feduccia to review this particular book is a bit like asking
> Rush Limbaugh to review an autobiography of Barack Obama.
Actually, I have REAL problems with this review, and not because
Feduccia disagrees with Long's assumptions. The problem is that it's
advertised as a review but it's really a rebuttal (or an attempted
rebuttal). It just isn't doing what it says on the tin. I know that
Feduccia is not alone in this -- it's distressingly common practice --
but I do wish that people writing book reviews would, you know, REVIEW
THE BOOK. Tell us what's in it, describe the standard of
illustrations, and so on. Not give us a half-arsed version of why
they disagree with it. You want to write a rebuttal, write a
Basically, anyone calling himself a scientist should be capable of
reviewing of a book whose premise he disagrees with, without spending
more than half of the review on a poorly-argued digression.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "No man ought to surrender his own judgment to any mere authority,
however respectable" - Joseph Priestley