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

Re: Ozraptor (RE: Ceratosaurian astragalocalcaneum from Australia)



> They say Ozraptor is not diagnostic, referring to:

Do those papers say it can't even be recognized as a ceratosaur, or only that it's a nomen dubium and can't be distinguished from other abelisauroids or something? Because if it's the latter, I have to agree with this:

 And yet the title and abstract don't say this astragalocalcaneum is
 the first diagnostic Australian ceratosaur, they say it's the first
 Australian ceratosaur period. Much like how Ichthyovenator was
 claimed as the first definitive Asian spinosaur when it was actually
 the seventh. Is anyone else concerned papers are lying to make their
 finds seem more ground-breaking?

In addition to the problem with funding (which is especially bad in the US, where scientists spend a lot of time writing grant proposals instead of papers), the journals with the highest impact factors put great emphasis on breaking news; the more newsworthy a manuscript, the less enormous its chance of being rejected. In a world where most scientists are paid for their impact factor (one way or another), many will overstate how sensational their findings are.