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

RE: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates



  It is (or should be) for scientific works, depending on the venue. If I were 
writing a magazine or journal article on oviraptorosaurs and jaw anatomy and 
just casually starting discussing new taxa, providing etymologies in post 
scripts, pointing to type specimens, and discussing apomorphies of distinction, 
I could then do this entirely without peer review. I could even send to 
_Prehistoric Times_ and do this, so there's a venue right there that does not 
provide for peer review, anonymous or otherwise, and thus produce new taxonomy. 
You are correct: It isn't required, but as long as we're talking ideals, Mike, 
it sure comes in handy in weeding out the crap. I'd even make a point that 
formal publication venues _require_ at least one anonymous reviewer as stacking 
the review with your friends or the co-editors of your own volume doesn't 
really help credit the quality of your work. This is a service that each venue 
must provide out of its own time and energy, and I understand how hard this is, 
but this is for Science: It should be hard.

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 10:07:40 +0100
> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
>
> 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  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.
> >
> >
> >