Re: Feduccia: the same old story...

[dinoboygraphics@aol.com]

Ok, wait, now this discussion has gone places I didn't intend.  Peer 
review, like everything else in science, is done by people, and one of 
our traits is to not be perfect.  I don't think this paper should be 
seen as an indication that the peer review process is in some systemic 
way deficient.  These things straighten themselves out over time, as 
more data and a preponderance of references pile up.

While not major deficienies, I do think the BAND authors have of late 
published a few things (one of them was a  non peer reviewed editorial 
in Auk which doesn't count) that I wish had been more heavily modified 
during the review process.  I think it's fair to lament that some 
unfortunate things sneak through peer review, as it serves as social 
reinforcement to avoid the same fallacies inthe future (specifically 
quote mining, which I find rather unfortunate).  That being said, the 
peer review system, flawed though it may be, is by far the best we've 
got and until we invent something better it should recieve our support.


Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center
110 Carter Ranch Rd.
Thermopolis, WY 82443
(408) 483-9284

www.skeletaldrawing.com