[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Concavenator corcovatus, a new humped carcharodontosaurid from Las Hoyas
On 10 September 2010 17:06, Augusto Haro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> -Now in the digital era suppl. info is to me the same as a paper. It
> is also peer-reviewed and mostly accessible as pdf.
Sadly, I have to side with Ralph on this (despite my initial
position): SI is _not_ really reviewed -- at least, I know that when I
am reviewing a paper with SI, I don't give it the same level of
attention that I do the actual manuscript. Its second-class status is
apparent in that journals don't bother to typeset it. Also, they have
a very nasty habit of losing it. So all in all, I am not a fan of SI
and have so far managed to avoid using it in any of my own papers.
> -However, regarding the idealism related to the lenght of the paper, I
> think nobody is hurt if you both publish shortly in Nature and then to
> a greater lenght elsewhere, and you gain two papers to calm whichever
> institution funds you.
That is fine, so long as it actually gets done. In practice, however,
it doesn't always; and even when it does, it tends to be a looong time
after the initial report -- see for example Curry Rogers's (2009)
postcranial osteology of Rapetosaurus in JVP ... nine years after the
initial publication of that animal as five pages in Nature -- and that
is one of the faster turnarounds.
(Mickey Mortimer once did an analysis of delay between initial and
proper publication of theropods described in the tabloids, though I
forget whether its online. The statistics were damning. IIRC, the
median delay was more than a decade.)
> -If the authors did not see other alternatives, there is nothing to be
> blamed upon them. I suppose for most of us, things pass along our side
> unnoticed all the time. If they have never seen an ulna with an
> intermuscular line but they saw ulnae with quill knobs, one can say
> their consideration is also logical.
> 2010/9/10 ralphchapman <email@example.com>:
>> Don't agree, supplementary info is just that, not, imho the place for
>> detailed discussions of theoretical aspects that should be the part of a
>> main publication, and that is what this needs to be.