[Taxacom] a biodiversity rant from me [Wheeler et al. 2012]

[Stephen Thorpe]

also, and in line with the quote from Todd, it is probably not a good idea to give a contrary out of step citation to a paper that is obviously ridiculous and probably only out to get citations. It isn't worth citing, and should just be ignored. One should cite only those contrary conclusions that seem reasonably well supported by good science. A judgement call, of course...
 
incidentally, it is perhaps interesting to note that the Costello et al. (2011) paper still hasn't been published in print (First published online: August 18, 2011), even though the journal has a good turnaround with other papers ...
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: "TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] a biodiversity rant from me [Wheeler et al. 2012]


Stephen,

A contrary out of step citation is still legitimately worth citing of
course - in the form "( but see X et al 2011)", and indeed very much of
interest (so why are the conclusions different) & would get the citation
metric 'credit'.

More from Todd et al.  http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08587

"[p.302] ‘The author’s responsibilities are absolutely clear: first, to
consult the original paper; second, to quote the original material
correctly and in context; and third, to present the bibliographic
reference accurately’ (* Biebuyck 1992, p. 2). We would add: only cite
review papers when they contribute something original, use the citation
immediately after the assertion as opposed to grouping references together
at the end of the sentence and do not provide long lists of citations if 1
or 2 will do."

Oh boy, if everyone followed those suggestions we would have some more
readable papers.

* Biebuyck JF (1992) Concerning the ethics and accuracy of scientific
citations. Anesthesiology 77:1–2


Geoff


On Thu, March 29, 2012 9:44 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> very interesting stuff Geoff! Many thanks!