[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Science feather strength debate
I appreciate Jason acknowledging that Nudds & Dyke have made major errors.
On the other hand -
In a message dated 11/11/10 11:34:32 PM, email@example.com writes:
<< And, while doing so, please explain why no one in the
world can reproduce your results, and why no authors are allowed by their
editors to cite your work in peer - reviewed literature.
That's so over the top that it happens to veer into libel -- is always a
bad idea to talk in absolutes. Paper after paper has cited my research,
including many in Science, Nature, PLos One. And a number of papers have
reproduced my results, including the body masses (there was one in JVP a few
back that I'm too lazy to look up). I see that the in press paper in
Cretaceous Research on the Australian big tridactyl trackways properly cites
But Jason does bring up something of interest. He may well be correct that
some editors are barring researchers from citing my prior published
research. I had not thought of that. It may help explain a pattern I have seen
the years. Papers that discuss concepts I have publised on going back into
the early 80s don't cite my priority. Perhaps sometimes it is not the
author's fault, but the editor's. If that is happening then editors must cease
doing this. Barring a paper from citing priority for an earlier research
proposal or result is unethical. So be good and behave yourselves. And authors
not go along with editors requests/demands to drop references that assign
concept/research priority by anyone. Always best to do the right thing.