[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: So what are the rules about SVP and publishing? Or talking about presentations?
2) Abstracts (and presentations) are only preliminary. Many a
discussion on the DML about an abstract or presentation has been
later revealed to be hopelessly premature, with rampant speculation
on a topic for which there is little supporting information. Hence
the frequent reminder to "wait for the paper."
Yeah. Some abstracts never turn into a paper because they are simply
wrong. For instance, there's the case of an SVP meeting abstract that
reported a crazy phalangeal formula for the foot of a ceratopsian:
4-4-3-3-0. (Four bones in the first toe, four in the second toe...)
Would have had major implications for... for evolution in general,
basically, because phalangeal formulae are remarkably highly conserved
since the Early Carboniferous at least. Later it turned out (mentioned
in a parenthesis in a published paper, I think) it was just
disarticulated material that had been mismounted by someone incompetent,
and the foot actually has 2-3-4-5-0 as usual. (Note how both formulae
add up to 14 phalanges in total.) Oopsie.
SVP meeting abstracts do not undergo peer review (I think some editor
looks at them, but that's it), and almost none of the submissions are
3) High profile science glam magz have rather stringent criteria for
acceptance of articles. If it is perceived that a find has been
already publicized (hence hurting the journal's chance to be the
exclusive first outlet for the research), the paper may be rejected.
Yep. This is probably the biggest reason. Nature in particular will
almost literally stop the presses, or has at least managed to create
this as its public image.