[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
Why sadly? Anyway, Mike is right, the trick is you have to publish the
follow up as soon as is reasonable and hopefully that will be coming. Back
in "the good ole days", when you published in those two journals it was
assumed there would be a follow up expanded paper published afterwards. We
did. I think with the e journals now, the rapid follow up is possible and I
am looking forward to more on this exciting thing. Was at Las Hoyas a number
of years ago and it is a neat place.
As far as SI goes, it just doesn't get the full attention from reviewers
that the main paper gets and is really not often the part of the paper that
lasts - should be but often doesn't. Thankfully, the e aspect will make it
easier to keep access to this part and keep associated with the paper. When
we published in Science, it was everything had to be in the paper and
expanded a little with the numbered refs. It really was awful and
Anyway, keep talking about options, it is nice to hear the discourse.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 10:15 AM
To: Augusto Haro
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Concavenator corcovatus, a new humped carcharodontosaurid from
On 10 September 2010 17:06, Augusto Haro <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> 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.