Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates

[Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>]

Now you're saying we shouldn't cite EMBARGOED dissertations.

No-one's ever disagreed with that.

I wouldn't cite an embargoed _Nature_ article, either.

-- Mike.



On 15 June 2011 21:47, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>   While I would like to think that I shouldn't need to belabor my argument, 
> I'd like to know by what measure it is "right" to cite material that any of 
> your readers may never be able to see themselves? By fiat?
>
>   Will you provide copies of your references to any reader that asks without 
> question? (I assume copying charges when relevant and postage will apply.) 
> This question is not about the value of citation, but the value of the ethic 
> of citing potentially restricted or embargoed material.
>
>   I've noted the problem -- which most of us are aware of -- of publishing on 
> material or content that cannot be verified without extremes (or ever) here: 
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-brush-narrow-and-broad/ In it, I 
> mentioned the (well known by now) case of KJ1 and KJ2, in which no one can 
> validate Bennett's arguments. This is true for a great number of other 
> valuable or interesting specimens, and it takes no leap of the imagination to 
> extend this by analogy to dissertations, which may often cover material that 
> is embargoed until formal publication.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>
> "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 
> Backs)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> From: mike@indexdata.com
>> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:32:48 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
>> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
>> CC: danchure@easilink.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
>>
>> Rather than continue this pointless argument, I am just going to keep
>> right on citing dissertations in my own papers. Because it's the
>> right thing to do.
>>
>> -- Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 June 2011 20:06, Jaime Headden  wrote:
>> >
>> >   As I said, I do not think we should be citing theses and dissertations 
>> > for _data_. It is okay to cite them for what they are, pieces of paper 
>> > cobbled together by a student for the purpose of proving his/her worth to 
>> > a body of men and women (mostly the former), that _may_ contain 
>> > information useful to the outside world. Nowadays, most theses are written 
>> > in a fashion that could be airlifted whole into publication form, and are 
>> > (I can mention Lü Junchang's PhD dissertation, for example, as such a 
>> > thing), but this is not always the case. It is alright (in the current 
>> > form, as I see it) to cite dissertations as historical objects, but not as 
>> > sources of data, especially when the document itself is embargoed by a 
>> > governing body or by the author.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Jaime A. Headden
>> > The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>> > http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>> >
>> > "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 Backs)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------
>> >> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:17:12 -0600
>> >> From: danchure@easilink.com
>> >> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> >> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
>> >>
>> >> Gray literature is not useless literature. If a report, dissertation,
>> >> or whatever contains useful information relevant to a publication I
>> >> think it should be cited because it brings that information to the
>> >> attention of the scientific community. Would it be better if it
>> >> remained unknown? Surely gray literature is no more difficult to access
>> >> than an old journal that is no longer in existence or an obscure current
>> >> journal that is quite difficult to find copies of. One could always
>> >> write the author(s) and ask for a copy of the gray literature in
>> >> question. Pdfs can make gray literature more accessible than ever before.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe the biological community doesn't do this, but that is to their
>> >> detriment it seems to me.
>> >>
>> >> Dan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 6/15/2011 3:52 AM, Jaime Headden wrote:
>> >> > Mike Taylor wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I would regard there being a general taboo against citing "grey 
>> >> > literature." Generally, dissertations are not cited in biological 
>> >> > literature, and most work -- if not 99.9% of it -- is from the formal 
>> >> > literature, to the point that works in popular magazines, even when 
>> >> > they present useful visual data (e.g., _National Geographic_), are not 
>> >> > cited (save in the historical context). They are not data. That they 
>> >> > are in geological work (as in historical and anthropological) should 
>> >> > not be to their credit: We should be able to track the work of reported 
>> >> > material back to its very source, without having to do the legwork 
>> >> > again -- that's the POINT of the literature! As for pers. comm.s, I 
>> >> > argue that they should not be used at all, as well as citing "in press" 
>> >> > work, as it cannot be followed or tracked at the time. It IS better to 
>> >> > leave it out. Can we not include work that readers and students cannot 
>> >> > follow without forcing them to unusual or torturous paths? Every author 
>> >> > should have read a
>> >> > nd examined each work he or she cites (in the case of multiple authors, 
>> >> > each person including the citation should have at least read the work 
>> >> > in question _bar none_), and every potential reader should have access 
>> >> > to that work; if one cannot reasonably be allowed access, you should 
>> >> > not cite it, use information it exclusively carries, etc..
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike, what papers other than work you, Matt Wedel or Darren Naish have 
>> >> > published have cited your blog in formal citation? I'd think that work 
>> >> > citing blogs (especially how I can edit any of my posts at any time to 
>> >> > say anything) should be reprehensible in that is defies the value of 
>> >> > the citation: A permanent, indelible work to be referenced. Unless you 
>> >> > are citing a cache object of a specific edit, I cannot see how that 
>> >> > should have been able to pass editorial or peer review. If you WANT to 
>> >> > do this, then creating PDF objects with embedded datestamps and some 
>> >> > external verification and linking them to blogposts, then citing THOSE, 
>> >> > would work better.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it's the only LAZY thing to do while still citing something. You 
>> >> > could always do the bloody legwork involved to get the thing published, 
>> >> > either by cajoling the author or by finding a way to formalize the 
>> >> > dissertation. Barring that, you can just restudy the material and note 
>> >> > the historical value of the dissertation, but not citing it for 
>> >> > discussion unless there was a permanent and accessible form of it 
>> >> > available for review (i.e., any reader of the paper/manuscript).
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> >
>> >> > Jaime A. Headden
>> >> > The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>> >> > http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>> >> >
>> >> > "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 Backs)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ----------------------------------------
>> >> >> From: mike@indexdata.com
>> >> >> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:57:34 +0100
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
>> >> >> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
>> >> >> CC: j.falconnet@gmail.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 15 June 2011 09:46, Jaime Headden wrote:
>> >> >>> Many universities, most of them European, embargo their 
>> >> >>> dissertations. These are often treated as formal and published works 
>> >> >>> which can be cited, but tend not to be because other nations (the US 
>> >> >>> is an example) treat their dissertations more openly, but do NOT 
>> >> >>> consider them published. They are grey literature, and typically do 
>> >> >>> not carry embargoes on their contents.
>> >> >> Yes. This is precisely what I am saying should change.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I am thus in a double-blind: Either I must work from material that 
>> >> >>> even interested parties may not be able to see, no matter how polite 
>> >> >>> they are to me or my governing university, or I work from material 
>> >> >>> that is available, but is taboo to cite because it lacks (say) peer 
>> >> >>> review.
>> >> >> There has never been a taboo on citing non-reviewed publications. We
>> >> >> all do it all the time. When a non-reviewed source is where the point
>> >> >> to be cited was made, we just go ahead and cite it -- it's better than
>> >> >> leaving it out, and a heck of a lot better than pers. comm. (Also
>> >> >> I've been pleasantly surprised recently how open journals are becoming
>> >> >> to citing blog posts -- for example, SV-POW! articles have recently
>> >> >> been sited in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Acta
>> >> >> Palaeontologia Polonica and the Journal of Zoology.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> That the work reanalyzes material from a dissertation is irrelevant: 
>> >> >>> Such material should be published on first to create a citable 
>> >> >>> framework which itself can be examined. I would be curious if the 
>> >> >>> work in question (Houssaye& Bardet) could have performed their work 
>> >> >>> based solely on the published discussion, or by working from the 
>> >> >>> material directly, and never reference the dissertation? If so, then 
>> >> >>> using the dissertation as a source becomes pointless.
>> >> >> If the dissertation discusses the material and the dissertation author
>> >> >> has not superseded his own work with "published" versions, then
>> >> >> working on the material entails citing the thesis -- it's the only
>> >> >> honest thing to do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -- Mike.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Cheers,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Jaime A. Headden
>> >> >>> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>> >> >>> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "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 Backs)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ----------------------------------------
>> >> >>>> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:28:24 +0200
>> >> >>>> From: j.falconnet@gmail.com
>> >> >>>> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
>> >> >>>> CC: bh480@scn.org; dinosaur@usc.edu
>> >> >>>> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ... but you obviously didn't read the paper. If you had had done so, 
>> >> >>>> you
>> >> >>>> would have see that the authors reanalyzed the rib sections 
>> >> >>>> available in
>> >> >>>> Sheldon's PhD (1995) and partly published later (Sheldon, 1997; 
>> >> >>>> Sheldon
>> >> >>>> & Bell, 1998). Hence the citation of Sheldon's original work 
>> >> >>>> (provided
>> >> >>>> by the author, btw). Also, even if the abstract is quite ambiguous
>> >> >>>> ("available in Sheldon's PhD thesis" referring to the reanalysis or 
>> >> >>>> rib
>> >> >>>> sections ?), the actual paper is not.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I don't see any problem in reusing data available in a PhD 
>> >> >>>> dissertation.
>> >> >>>> There is no nomenclatural, taxonomical, or moral issue here. Should 
>> >> >>>> we
>> >> >>>> refrain from using measurements from dissertations because they are 
>> >> >>>> not
>> >> >>>> published ? Reference to unpublished reports regarding quarries,
>> >> >>>> borehole, or geological exploration in general is very common in 
>> >> >>>> local
>> >> >>>> geology, for instance (e.g., BRGM for France, GSA for US, ...).
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Cordially,
>> >> >>>> Jocelyn
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Le 14/06/2011 20:40, Jaime Headden a écrit :
>> >> >>>>> I call foul. The paper is citing a thesis for a source, and not 
>> >> >>>>> just that but it's in the ABSTRACT, too.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Jaime A. Headden
>> >> >>>>> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>> >> >>>>> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> "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 Backs)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> ----------------------------------------
>> >> >>>>>> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:56:22 -0400
>> >> >>>>>> From: bh480@scn.org
>> >> >>>>>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> >> >>>>>> Subject: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> From: Ben Creisler
>> >> >>>>>> bh480@scn.org
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Another new paper about mosasaurs:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> ALEXANDRA HOUSSAYE& NATHALIE BARDET (2011)
>> >> >>>>>> Rib and vertebral micro-anatomical characteristics of hydropelvic
>> >> >>>>>> mosasauroids.
>> >> >>>>>> Lethaia (advance online publication)
>> >> >>>>>> DOI: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.2011.00273.x
>> >> >>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.2011.00273.x/abstract
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Mosasauroids are squamates secondarily adapted to an aquatic life 
>> >> >>>>>> that
>> >> >>>>>> dominated the sea during the Late Cretaceous. Mosasauroids display 
>> >> >>>>>> distinct
>> >> >>>>>> types of morphologies illustrating steps in the adaptation of this 
>> >> >>>>>> lineage
>> >> >>>>>> to increasing obligatory habits. Hydropelvic mosasauroids (sensu 
>> >> >>>>>> Caldwell&
>> >> >>>>>> Palci) were the most highly adapted to an open-sea environment. 
>> >> >>>>>> Contrary to
>> >> >>>>>> plesiopelvic forms, they are considered to have relied on a 
>> >> >>>>>> hydrodynamic,
>> >> >>>>>> rather than hydrostatic buoyancy and body trim control strategies. 
>> >> >>>>>> This led
>> >> >>>>>> previous authors to consider that these taxa would favour bone 
>> >> >>>>>> lightening
>> >> >>>>>> (osteoporotic-like condition) rather than bone mass increase. 
>> >> >>>>>> Although an
>> >> >>>>>> osteoporotic-like state was indeed described in Clidastes and 
>> >> >>>>>> Tylosaurus,
>> >> >>>>>> bone mass increase was reported in Platecarpus. As a matter of 
>> >> >>>>>> fact, the
>> >> >>>>>> new analysis of vertebral thin sections of various taxa combined 
>> >> >>>>>> with the
>> >> >>>>>> reanalysis of the rib sections available in Sheldon’s PhD thesis 
>> >> >>>>>> in a
>> >> >>>>>> micro-anatomical perspective reveals the absence of both bone mass 
>> >> >>>>>> increase
>> >> >>>>>> and bone lightening in these organisms. These taxa in fact display 
>> >> >>>>>> a
>> >> >>>>>> vertebral micro-anatomy much peculiar within squamates. It
>> >> >>>>>> characteristically corresponds to a true network of thin 
>> >> >>>>>> trabeculae whose
>> >> >>>>>> tightness varies between taxa, probably as a result of both 
>> >> >>>>>> species and
>> >> >>>>>> individual size differences, particularly the latter. In addition, 
>> >> >>>>>> analysis
>> >> >>>>>> of the pattern of vascularization as observed in hydropelvic 
>> >> >>>>>> mosasauroids,
>> >> >>>>>> which is unique amongst squamates, suggests that large size in 
>> >> >>>>>> hydropelvic
>> >> >>>>>> mosasauroids would mainly rely on protracted rather than faster 
>> >> >>>>>> growth
>> >> >>>>>> rates.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>>>>> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>> >> >>>>>> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>