[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 rejected.

 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.