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

RE: Feduccia on bird origins (again)

For the record, and in following to my previous post, my full perspective is 
available here: 


  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"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 

> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:26:53 +1100
> From: tijawi@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: 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.