On a slightly different topic about PNAS, I found the article very interesting in this week's issue that showed that gender bias can be lethal: people don't take hurricanes with female names as seriously as those with male names, so don't take enough precautions and are more likely to be killed or injured. Amazing.
> I had a paper go through peer review at PNAS last fall, and although > the paper got rejected, it was certainly very well peer reviewed. > This paper compares current extinction rates of vertebrates in modern > times to that in the Cretaceous mass extinction (using fuzzy > computational approaches). One reviewer caught a typo in the table on > mammals and it fed down the column. The other reviewer alerted me to > a couple of Pimm's articles which I had missed citing, pretty > important since he had done similar stuff with point estimates a good > decade or more before. I went back, corrected the error, required me > to recalculate the column of numbers, and now its back in peer review > with a different journal. Of course, the hardest part is that so few > people have any background in fuzzy math that they make a lot of > invalid interpretations of the numbers. This means I have to be extra > careful to relate things well. Its pretty hard in that respect. But, > hopefully, it will get published this time around. Its obviously an > important study, but you have to dot your i's and cross your t's. I > was pretty embarrassed to have such an error, but even though others > had read it for me prior to submission, none would have recognized it. > In fact, the reviewer who knew fuzzy math caught it. Pretty > disappointing too, but you know what? Its water under the bridge now. > :) > > I would not hesitate to send a paper into PNAS if I felt it was that > important. > Now, would would you like me to relay my experiences with PLoS One? > Ok, I'm in a good mood today, not going there. :) > M > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM, David Duffy <ddu...@hawaii.edu> wrote: >> Problems with peer review at PNAS and trendiness at Science and Nature >> >> http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-publishing-the-inside-track-1.15424?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140619 >> >> -- >> David Duffy >> æ´å¤§å (Dà i Dà wÄi) >> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit >> Botany >> University of Hawaii >> 3190 Maile Way >> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >> 1-808-956-8218 > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP > Department of Environmental Studies > University of Illinois at Springfield > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > âNothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich > array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a > many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature > lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share > as Americans.â > -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of > 1973 into law. > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. >
