[Taxacom] Nonsense in ZooKeys (photo based taxonomy again)

[Geoffrey Read]

Not a topic I want to get into at the moment Stephen. I just point out
what I think a paper requires. Usually quite a lot of improvement in my
opinion.  Whether the authors take any notice is their affair.

However, I take a very dim view of distortion of fact when I think I see
it. We should be able to trust fellow scientists not to misrepresent past
work.

Geoff


On Tue, August 29, 2017 8:21 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Geoff said: "Okay authors are always responsible for content, not
> reviewers, ..."
>
> Just out of interest then, what are reviewers responsible for? I suspect
> you mean that they are not responsible for individual fact checking, but
> "content" is, of course, more than that.
>
> Anyway, Geoff has rightly pointed out yet another example wherein an
> author with an agenda can sneak any old "alternative fact" into the
> scientific literature in order to try to bolster their argument. And the
> end of the day, the annoying thing about articles like this one is that
> people with similar agendas to the authors will cite the article as a
> "peer reviewed publication in a reputable journal" to support their view,
> when in fact the article is just garbage.
>
> Stephen
>


--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz