Re: Sobral and Langer 2008 (was pteros have lift-off)

[Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>]

Augusto Haro wrote:


> Well, if David Peters sent a manuscript and it was not
> accepted, I think it is not entirely his fault that we cannot see his
> ideas published. 


To play devil's advocate here, it's not entirely *not* his fault either.  
Perhaps he could improve the quality of his manuscript (perhaps taking on board 
the comments offered, and correct the errors), then re-submit it to another 
journal. 


> If you, David Peters, can't find a peer-reviewed magazine
> in which to publish your ideas, I think it would be good to
> show them in a website or another publication, as way ago done by
> George Olshevsky. 


I think this a very bad idea.  I'm not sure the publications by that particular 
individual deserve to be emulated.  Mr Olshevsky got himself into some hot 
water several years ago when he erected some new tyrannosaur genera in a 
non-scientific publication (a Japanese fanzine).  Further, an article of his 
that expressed his views on dinosaur/bird evolution ("BCF") is Exhibit A on the 
perils of lack of peer review.  His article (published in a pop-sci magazine 
called "Omni") was littered with mistakes and misrepresentations, both 
deliberate and otherwise.  It's an exemplar of poor science.  

If David Peters' work is to be put in on an equal footing with the research of 
(other) experts in the field, then the work needs to be exposed to the same 
rigorous publication process as that of said experts.  Simply putting in up on 
a website, or printing it in a popular magazine (like "Prehistoric Times"), or 
self-publishing it (a la Stephan Pickering's quasi-paleontological 
'newsletters'), isn't going to cut the mustard.  Sure, there is no guarantee 
that peer review is going to produce a high-quality publication.  But DP's work 
stands a better shot via this avenue than if it was simply put up on the 
internet.  There is so much dross floating around out there in cyberspace, and 
I think DP's work deserves better.  Submitting it to a peer-reviewed scientific 
journal, and taking the lumps, is probably the best way to go.


> At least I would be interested in reading the studies you
> mention in the list.


So would I.  But with the caveat that the work be thoroughly reviewed before it 
is published, in order to be taken seriously.



Cheers

Tim