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

Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates



Again: peer-review is not, and has never been, a prerequisite of
publication.  It's a good thing, sure, but absolutely not a
requirement for something to be considered "published".  It just
isn't.

-- Mike.


On 15 June 2011 10:04, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 referencing unpublished reports or material is a strong reason we shouldn't 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 be citing unpublished work; but also that we need an official forum for 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>
> "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 
> Backs)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> 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 Reference to unpublished reports regarding quarries, borehole,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.
>
>
>