tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519292617097628087.post6342780555124578341..comments2024-01-02T16:09:12.886-07:00Comments on Chinleana: My Thoughts on the Peer Review Process (Part 1) - Self-PublicationBill Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05941940882532354219noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519292617097628087.post-70938381010306487182010-06-14T21:58:02.572-07:002010-06-14T21:58:02.572-07:00Interesting that I immediately noticed the manuscr...Interesting that I immediately noticed the manuscript didn't include citations of Nesbitt et. al., 2006, where they discussed the prey being underneath the Coelophysis and also not being a juvenile Coelophysis.<br /><br />Nesbitt, Sterling J., Alan Turner, Gregory Erickson, and Mark Norrell.<br />2006. Prey choice and cannibalistic behaviour in the theropod Coelophysis. Royal Society Biology LettersBill Muellernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519292617097628087.post-32667445438576621182010-06-14T21:11:04.677-07:002010-06-14T21:11:04.677-07:00Mr. May,
I hope that you are not entirely seriou...Mr. May, <br /><br />I hope that you are not entirely serious or that whomever had you write this is paying you well. Am I trying to implicitly discredit MR. Gay? No, should I be? As a researcher am I thrilled with the choices he made with this publication. No not one bit, as should be obvious.<br /><br />It is also obvious from your comment that for some reason you are not a fan of technical paleontology journals and applaud Mr. Gay for bypassing the system. In fact, you claim that he was almost forced to do this. Let's reexamine this:<br /><br />Sometime around 2004 Mr. Gay submitted two papers, one to the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (according to you and expensive and inaccessible specialist journal...but from an organization to which Mr. Gay belongs), and the other the in-house published Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science.<br /><br />The first article presumably was sent out for review and then returned to Mr. Gay for revisions. Revisions which he never made (per Mr. Gay), thus the article was not accepted.<br /><br />The second article was also returned with revisions, which Mr. Gay never made (per the editor), thus this paper was also not published. <br /><br />This is standard for most scientific journals. If you do not make requested revisions (for any reason) your article is not accepted. This is not the fault of the journals, it is the fault of the author.<br /><br />How did he misrepresent himself in my eyes? Let's see, he self published six year old, non-re-reviewed or updated data and conclusions completely ignoring more recent work by colleagues.<br /><br />He erected a new taxonomic name without recent review and without entirely following the rules of zoological nomenclature. <br /><br />He boldly announces this work, boasting that it "will be carried in stores..far surpassing the availablity of other high profile journals anywhere on the globe". Then he has the audacity to fix it with an IBSN number and charge people for paper copies and downloads. <br /><br />I cannot understand at all why he, considering himself a scientist, would even begin to think that this would be acceptable, never mind a good idea. The very fact that he had to include a page on "notes on publication" demonstrates that he knew it was a bad idea and not how scientific publication is regularly done.<br /><br />I repeat, Mr. Gay should have brought his articles up to date, and re-submitted them to proper journals rather than circumvent the system (and affix blame to the system). The fact that he has taken the route he has demonstrates in my opinion that he was more interested in getting his name on some publications and a new dinosaur name out than in actually making a sound scientific contribution. It shouldn't take a paleontologist to realize that there is something wrong with this. Shame on you for suggesting that precedence is all that matters in science and supporting this type of behavior.Bill Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05941940882532354219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519292617097628087.post-68663448146722432072010-06-14T09:39:55.106-07:002010-06-14T09:39:55.106-07:00Interesting how you seem to work to implicitly dis...Interesting how you seem to work to implicitly discredit Dr Gay. But from what I can see here, there's no suggestion that Dr Gay is actually wrong. He has transgressed the norms of science, however, by publishing under his own steam, rather than in an expensive and inaccessible specialist journal. It's not clear how he has 'misrepresented' himself. Actually - and I'm no paleantologist - it looks to me as though he has simply acted independently of the main organs of his discipline. And he's only done this - by your account - because others made it necessary for him to do so. What's illegitimate about this? Surely the focus of everyone's annoyed attention should be the journals that accepted these paper but then did not publish them? Since precedence is important in science it looks to me as though Robert Gay has merely done what he had to do to establish his and assign the name. Good for him!Carl Maynoreply@blogger.com