[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates

So long as the process of producing and releasing a dissertaion occurs outside 
of the process of a rigorous peer review process of a typical journal 
(_Science_, _PLoS_, _JVP_), I would agree. However, most work on dissertations 
_do not_ follow this, including the review committees and the utter lack of 
peer review. No formal dissemination, purchaseable quality occurs. In the US, 
there are services to acquire photocopies at cost (material & manhours), but 
this is a secondary market, much as occurs at any library -- it is not 
publication. I'd argue that Jocelyn's comments about referencing unpublished 
reports or material is a strong reason we shouldn't be citing unpublished work; 
but also that we need an official forum for publishing this stuff that allows 
it to be accessible.


Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> From: mike@indexdata.com
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:27:38 +0100
> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
> To: j.falconnet@gmail.com
> CC: qi_leong@hotmail.com; bh480@scn.org; dinosaur@usc.edu
> On 15 June 2011 08:28, Jocelyn Falconnet  wrote:
> > I don't see any problem in reusing data available in a PhD dissertation.
> > There is no nomenclatural, taxonomical, or moral issue here. Should we
> > refrain from using measurements from dissertations because they are not
> > published ? Reference to unpublished reports regarding quarries, borehole,
> > or geological exploration in general is very common in local geology, for
> > instance (e.g., BRGM for France, GSA for US, ...).
> I'd go further. It's time to drop the stupid convention that
> dissertation are considered "unpublished". If they're made freely
> available, then they are in fact published for all purposes except
> those of the ICZN (and as I've argued before the ICZN rules are wrong,
> but let's not get back into that). There was a time when
> dissertations were hard to get hold of; then it made sense not to
> consider them "published". But that time has gone.
> -- Mike.