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

RE: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates



  As I said, I do not think we should be citing theses and dissertations for 
_data_. It is okay to cite them for what they are, pieces of paper cobbled 
together by a student for the purpose of proving his/her worth to a body of men 
and women (mostly the former), that _may_ contain information useful to the 
outside world. Nowadays, most theses are written in a fashion that could be 
airlifted whole into publication form, and are (I can mention Lü Junchang's PhD 
dissertation, for example, as such a thing), but this is not always the case. 
It is alright (in the current form, as I see it) to cite dissertations as 
historical objects, but not as sources of data, especially when the document 
itself is embargoed by a governing body or by the author. 

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)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:17:12 -0600
> From: danchure@easilink.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
>
> Gray literature is not useless literature. If a report, dissertation,
> or whatever contains useful information relevant to a publication I
> think it should be cited because it brings that information to the
> attention of the scientific community. Would it be better if it
> remained unknown? Surely gray literature is no more difficult to access
> than an old journal that is no longer in existence or an obscure current
> journal that is quite difficult to find copies of. One could always
> write the author(s) and ask for a copy of the gray literature in
> question. Pdfs can make gray literature more accessible than ever before.
>
> Maybe the biological community doesn't do this, but that is to their
> detriment it seems to me.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 6/15/2011 3:52 AM, Jaime Headden wrote:
> > Mike Taylor wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > I would regard there being a general taboo against citing "grey 
> > literature." Generally, dissertations are not cited in biological 
> > literature, and most work -- if not 99.9% of it -- is from the formal 
> > literature, to the point that works in popular magazines, even when they 
> > present useful visual data (e.g., _National Geographic_), are not cited 
> > (save in the historical context). They are not data. That they are in 
> > geological work (as in historical and anthropological) should not be to 
> > their credit: We should be able to track the work of reported material back 
> > to its very source, without having to do the legwork again -- that's the 
> > POINT of the literature! As for pers. comm.s, I argue that they should not 
> > be used at all, as well as citing "in press" work, as it cannot be followed 
> > or tracked at the time. It IS better to leave it out. Can we not include 
> > work that readers and students cannot follow without forcing them to 
> > unusual or torturous paths? Every author should have read a
> > nd examined each work he or she cites (in the case of multiple authors, 
> > each person including the citation should have at least read the work in 
> > question _bar none_), and every potential reader should have access to that 
> > work; if one cannot reasonably be allowed access, you should not cite it, 
> > use information it exclusively carries, etc..
> >
> > 
> >
> > Mike, what papers other than work you, Matt Wedel or Darren Naish have 
> > published have cited your blog in formal citation? I'd think that work 
> > citing blogs (especially how I can edit any of my posts at any time to say 
> > anything) should be reprehensible in that is defies the value of the 
> > citation: A permanent, indelible work to be referenced. Unless you are 
> > citing a cache object of a specific edit, I cannot see how that should have 
> > been able to pass editorial or peer review. If you WANT to do this, then 
> > creating PDF objects with embedded datestamps and some external 
> > verification and linking them to blogposts, then citing THOSE, would work 
> > better.
> >
> > 
> >
> > No, it's the only LAZY thing to do while still citing something. You could 
> > always do the bloody legwork involved to get the thing published, either by 
> > cajoling the author or by finding a way to formalize the dissertation. 
> > Barring that, you can just restudy the material and note the historical 
> > value of the dissertation, but not citing it for discussion unless there 
> > was a permanent and accessible form of it available for review (i.e., any 
> > reader of the paper/manuscript).
> >
> > 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 09:57:34 +0100
> >> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
> >> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> >> CC: j.falconnet@gmail.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
> >>
> >> On 15 June 2011 09:46, Jaime Headden wrote:
> >>> Many universities, most of them European, embargo their dissertations. 
> >>> These are often treated as formal and published works which can be cited, 
> >>> but tend not to be because other nations (the US is an example) treat 
> >>> their dissertations more openly, but do NOT consider them published. They 
> >>> are grey literature, and typically do not carry embargoes on their 
> >>> contents.
> >> Yes. This is precisely what I am saying should change.
> >>
> >>> I am thus in a double-blind: Either I must work from material that even 
> >>> interested parties may not be able to see, no matter how polite they are 
> >>> to me or my governing university, or I work from material that is 
> >>> available, but is taboo to cite because it lacks (say) peer review.
> >> There has never been a taboo on citing non-reviewed publications. We
> >> all do it all the time. When a non-reviewed source is where the point
> >> to be cited was made, we just go ahead and cite it -- it's better than
> >> leaving it out, and a heck of a lot better than pers. comm. (Also
> >> I've been pleasantly surprised recently how open journals are becoming
> >> to citing blog posts -- for example, SV-POW! articles have recently
> >> been sited in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Acta
> >> Palaeontologia Polonica and the Journal of Zoology.)
> >>
> >>> That the work reanalyzes material from a dissertation is irrelevant: Such 
> >>> material should be published on first to create a citable framework which 
> >>> itself can be examined. I would be curious if the work in question 
> >>> (Houssaye& Bardet) could have performed their work based solely on the 
> >>> published discussion, or by working from the material directly, and never 
> >>> reference the dissertation? If so, then using the dissertation as a 
> >>> source becomes pointless.
> >> If the dissertation discusses the material and the dissertation author
> >> has not superseded his own work with "published" versions, then
> >> working on the material entails citing the thesis -- it's the only
> >> honest thing to do.
> >>
> >> -- Mike.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:28:24 +0200
> >>>> From: j.falconnet@gmail.com
> >>>> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> >>>> CC: bh480@scn.org; dinosaur@usc.edu
> >>>> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
> >>>>
> >>>> ... but you obviously didn't read the paper. If you had had done so, you
> >>>> would have see that the authors reanalyzed the rib sections available in
> >>>> Sheldon's PhD (1995) and partly published later (Sheldon, 1997; Sheldon
> >>>> & Bell, 1998). Hence the citation of Sheldon's original work (provided
> >>>> by the author, btw). Also, even if the abstract is quite ambiguous
> >>>> ("available in Sheldon's PhD thesis" referring to the reanalysis or rib
> >>>> sections ?), the actual paper is not.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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, ...).
> >>>>
> >>>> Cordially,
> >>>> Jocelyn
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 14/06/2011 20:40, Jaime Headden a écrit :
> >>>>> I call foul. The paper is citing a thesis for a source, and not just 
> >>>>> that but it's in the ABSTRACT, too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>>>> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:56:22 -0400
> >>>>>> From: bh480@scn.org
> >>>>>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> >>>>>> Subject: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Ben Creisler
> >>>>>> bh480@scn.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Another new paper about mosasaurs:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ALEXANDRA HOUSSAYE& NATHALIE BARDET (2011)
> >>>>>> Rib and vertebral micro-anatomical characteristics of hydropelvic
> >>>>>> mosasauroids.
> >>>>>> Lethaia (advance online publication)
> >>>>>> DOI: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.2011.00273.x
> >>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.2011.00273.x/abstract
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mosasauroids are squamates secondarily adapted to an aquatic life that
> >>>>>> dominated the sea during the Late Cretaceous. Mosasauroids display 
> >>>>>> distinct
> >>>>>> types of morphologies illustrating steps in the adaptation of this 
> >>>>>> lineage
> >>>>>> to increasing obligatory habits. Hydropelvic mosasauroids (sensu 
> >>>>>> Caldwell&
> >>>>>> Palci) were the most highly adapted to an open-sea environment. 
> >>>>>> Contrary to
> >>>>>> plesiopelvic forms, they are considered to have relied on a 
> >>>>>> hydrodynamic,
> >>>>>> rather than hydrostatic buoyancy and body trim control strategies. 
> >>>>>> This led
> >>>>>> previous authors to consider that these taxa would favour bone 
> >>>>>> lightening
> >>>>>> (osteoporotic-like condition) rather than bone mass increase. Although 
> >>>>>> an
> >>>>>> osteoporotic-like state was indeed described in Clidastes and 
> >>>>>> Tylosaurus,
> >>>>>> bone mass increase was reported in Platecarpus. As a matter of fact, 
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> new analysis of vertebral thin sections of various taxa combined with 
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> reanalysis of the rib sections available in Sheldon’s PhD thesis in a
> >>>>>> micro-anatomical perspective reveals the absence of both bone mass 
> >>>>>> increase
> >>>>>> and bone lightening in these organisms. These taxa in fact display a
> >>>>>> vertebral micro-anatomy much peculiar within squamates. It
> >>>>>> characteristically corresponds to a true network of thin trabeculae 
> >>>>>> whose
> >>>>>> tightness varies between taxa, probably as a result of both species and
> >>>>>> individual size differences, particularly the latter. In addition, 
> >>>>>> analysis
> >>>>>> of the pattern of vascularization as observed in hydropelvic 
> >>>>>> mosasauroids,
> >>>>>> which is unique amongst squamates, suggests that large size in 
> >>>>>> hydropelvic
> >>>>>> mosasauroids would mainly rely on protracted rather than faster growth
> >>>>>> rates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> >>>>>> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>