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

RE: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates



  While I would like to think that I shouldn't need to belabor my argument, I'd 
like to know by what measure it is "right" to cite material that any of your 
readers may never be able to see themselves? By fiat?

  Will you provide copies of your references to any reader that asks without 
question? (I assume copying charges when relevant and postage will apply.) This 
question is not about the value of citation, but the value of the ethic of 
citing potentially restricted or embargoed material.

  I've noted the problem -- which most of us are aware of -- of publishing on 
material or content that cannot be verified without extremes (or ever) here: 
http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-brush-narrow-and-broad/ In it, I 
mentioned the (well known by now) case of KJ1 and KJ2, in which no one can 
validate Bennett's arguments. This is true for a great number of other valuable 
or interesting specimens, and it takes no leap of the imagination to extend 
this by analogy to dissertations, which may often cover material that is 
embargoed until formal publication.

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 21:32:48 +0100
> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: danchure@easilink.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
>
> Rather than continue this pointless argument, I am just going to keep
> right on citing dissertations in my own papers. Because it's the
> right thing to do.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
> On 15 June 2011 20:06, Jaime Headden  wrote:
> >
> >   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
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >