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

Re: Feduccia on bird origins (again)



Lost in truncation...

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Scott Hartman
<skeletaldrawing@gmail.com> wrote:

If someone associated with the Auk wants to correct me that would be great,
but my understanding is that these "Perspectives" pieces are not
peer-reviewed, but instead are basically just editorials. Notice in the
acknowledgements there is no reference to any referees, only to like-minded
researchers for "assistance and critical reading". In other words, it's a
sham - it's more or less like writing an editorial for the WSJ or NYT, but
is formatted to look like peer-reviewed science.

That the Auk continues to participate in this charade (whether pretending
peer review or simply not even bothering) continues to demean all of the
other research published in their journal. And just so I'm clear, it
doesn't bother me in the slightest that they publish papers attacking the
dinosaur origin of birds (everything is fair game in science), it bothers
me that they continue to give audience to inferior works that don't even
attempt to read or address current literature and pawn such pieces off as
science.