tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post3724210008394916421..comments2024-03-12T03:23:42.976-04:00Comments on NeuroDojo: Why can’t I cite Mythbusters?Zen Faulkeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811309183398223358noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-19674732213828005572015-04-14T11:06:00.391-04:002015-04-14T11:06:00.391-04:00We are after all talking about a journal that rout...We are after all talking about a journal that routinely relegates the description part of descriptive papers to the footnotes. See for example Note 5 of Sereno et al. 1999. In a another decade we're going to look back and wonder how we <i>ever</i> thought publications like <i>Science</i> could be suitable venues for actual work.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-3859232921071684712015-04-14T10:48:33.021-04:002015-04-14T10:48:33.021-04:00Mike, what do you expect of a journal that publish...Mike, what do you expect of a journal that published extended abstracts only? ;)Heinrich Mallisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14195098490352297671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-23313874339653257322015-04-14T10:42:52.639-04:002015-04-14T10:42:52.639-04:00Right. As in the infamous Note 20 of Stevens and P...Right. As in the infamous Note 20 of Stevens and Parrish 1999 -- the unpublished (and still unpublished 16 years later) data that is fundamental to their whole approach. Still, you can't expect high standards from <i>Science</i>, can you?Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-21590096597660168152015-04-14T10:38:35.269-04:002015-04-14T10:38:35.269-04:00Idiotically, practically any journal in the world ...Idiotically, practically any journal in the world will accept "pers. obs." or "own unpubl. data". Gargh!Heinrich Mallisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14195098490352297671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-80193342913643452082015-04-13T10:52:01.569-04:002015-04-13T10:52:01.569-04:00The journal copy editors wrote: "Only peer-re...<i>The journal copy editors wrote: "Only peer-reviewed references are permitted in the reference list."</i><br /><br />As soon as I read that, I thought to myself "I bet that's not true". And sure enough, a few lines later you mentioned the non-peer-reviewed abstracts that they accepted.<br /><br />So the journal editors were, first, lying (or let us more charitably say they were mistaken).<br /><br />But if they'd been correct, they would still have been wrong. Because that policy makes no sense at all. True facts are true, wherever they're from. And false statements crop up <i>all the time</i> in peer-reviewed literature. Anyone who thinks they can use the peer-reviewed status of a publication as a badge of quality is at best naive, at worst outright deluded.<br /><br />Pretty much every journal allows the citation of pers. comms. Perhaps you should have cited the shark finding as "J. Hyneman and A. Savage, pers. comm., 2008". Admittedly, they personally communicated it to a few million other people at the same time, but that's neither here nor there.<br /><br />--<br /><br />As an aside: <a href="http://x.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/taylor2010/Taylor2010-sauropod-history.pdf" rel="nofollow">my chapter</a> on the history of sauropod research, in the Geological Society's 2010 book <i>Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Saurians: a Historical Perspective</i> included the following reference, which the reviewers and editors seems cool with:<br /><br />Chapman, G.& Cleese, J. 1989. Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses. In: Chapman, G., Cleese, J., Gilliam, T., Idle, E., Jones,T. & Palin, M. (eds) Just the Words, Volume 2. Methuen, London, 118-120.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.com