[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 13:50:04 2006
Message-ID: <104.708a07a5.310289a9_at_aol.com>

Dr. Jeff G. writes:

>All articles in the supplement issue get full peer review.
>Only the MetSoc abstracts do not. The MetBull is highly
>peer-reviewed. The Editor and Assoc. Editors produce
>writeups, and a committee of 13 scientists review each one.
>Many writeups also go out for review by scientists outside
>the NomCom. I realize that this is not a traditional peer
>review conducted by a independent editor, but it is a very,
>very high degree of peer scrutiny.
 
There is no argument here. Instead of being solely a knee-jerk reaction,
Dr. Grossman even anticipated correctly what I would logically reply regarding
"traditional peer review", and then replied to that.
 
The traditional gold standard in science is known as _Independent_ Peer
Review, and includes the concept of Reproducibility. This is what I meant by
"not especially peer reviewed process", and that was recognized in the
anticipated reply. I shouldn't have left this open to interpretation and should have
just said "Independent Peer Review Process", as I realize the possibility of
alternate interpretations of what I said. In the Meteoritical Sciences,
there are severe restrictions on the distribution of material in many cases, not
to mention access to equipment. The consensus of the scientific community
with access to both is to follow the process Dr. Grossman describes is the
generally accepted standard for this specialized group of scientists. My
comments were in a specific context, and in the specific context of an overly
spirited attack by one respectable list member on another.
 
Given the situation, the MetSoc process is administered in an excellent,
efficient, professional and admirable manner regarding the important scientific
questions in the field. It is administered by top-notch and ethical
scientists, one of which happens to be Dr. Grossman himself.
 
While the quality of the science is not at issue -it is usually impeccable-
all review processes have their limitations. In this case, we were in the
discussion regarding "main mass". There has never been a reason for a
scientific study of the linguistic usage of "main mass", and historically it has some
very important precedents. Dr. Grossman also was open to alternate uses
such as "main mass" of a group of paired meteorites, a minor but important
qualification. Eric summed it up best with his post, the "commercial" vs. the
"personal view". Other views are: views of committees and other groups of the
interested. Many committees seek to standardize application of terms in the
public use within the scientific community.
 
As a scientific editorial board, questions of scientific merit are all fair
game for the committee, even if the committee is not an independent function.
 However, the jurisdiction of scientific committees traditionally has not
included the charge of clearing up ambiguity relating to non-scientific issues
of this popular and ingrained nature. This debate on main mass is still here
and as Rob mentioned will be around for a while. It is a hollow scientific
issue generally without scientific content.
 
One other astronomical committee comes to mind, wrestling with a similar
question: Is Pluto a Planet? Alternately, if a scientist calls Vesta or Ceres
small planets, this possibly could pass the PNAS independent peer review
process fine (though the word minor likely would be swapped in). The real
concern is a commercial concern, and thus a more appropriate body to take it on
would be the IMCA, even if they took a page from the MetSoc for guidance. The
IMCA still would be expressing an opinion as an interest group and the debate
wouldn't be solved. But its members would create a convention which is a
meaningful issue relating to the trade and sale of meteorites.
 
Regarding another comment I made, it truly should be a separate question to
which I do not know the answer: If a meteorite is classified as L5 S2, and
then another independent peer reviewed work elsewhere decides it is an L5 S3,
or something even more different, what are the transparent, reproducible, and
peer reviewed actions that follow which will be published by the Met Soc to
challenge or augment the work of the original publication? And in a practical
sense how well does this work given that the Met Soc is the de-facto
authority on integrity of the World Meteorite Database (with a little help from the
British Museum, a certain commercial software, and a certain dedicated German
collector, and others)?
 
Saludos, Doug
 
 
 
 
Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 01:44:57 PM PST