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

Re: New Ruben Paper

To: Danvarner@aol.com
Subject: Re: New Ruben Paper
From: John Conway <john.a.conway@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:35:19 +0100
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
In-reply-to: <d17.4962482f.375fe1a1@aol.com>
References: <d17.4962482f.375fe1a1@aol.com>
Reply-to: john.a.conway@gmail.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Reading that, I was wondering how this stuff gets past peer review...

Well, the answer is that it doesn't. At least not in this case, from what I can see.

It's a dishonest tactic to imply in press releases and interviews that your (peer reviewed) paper supports a conclusion which it doesn't--especially because we know full well that most people won't read the paper.

This kind of stunt is really damaging to science.

The paper is open access:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122395783/abstract

Danvarner@aol.com wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm


--
Palaeontography: http://palaeo.jconway.co.uk

Follow-Ups:
- Re: New Ruben Paper
  - From: Mike Habib <habib@jhmi.edu>
- Re: New Ruben Paper
  - From: Roberto Takata <rmtakata@gmail.com>

References:
- New Ruben Paper
  - From: Danvarner@aol.com

Prev by Date: Re: New Ruben Paper
Next by Date: Re: New Ruben Paper
Previous by thread: Re: New Ruben Paper
Next by thread: Re: New Ruben Paper
Indexes: