[meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)

From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon May 8 08:26:59 2006
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060508080730.044156b8_at_usgs.gov>

Although I'm staying out of this animated discussion, I will tackle
this question:

All scientific publications are the subject of votes of a sort. It
is called the peer-review process. That is the kind of vote new
meteorite descriptions receive from the NomCom, which functions as a
scientific review panel. The vote answers the question: does this
research meet current scientific standards of methodology,
documentation, completeness, accuracy, reproducibility, and reporting
such that it can be published by the Meteoritical Society in the
Meteoritical Bulletin. These standards are defined both by the
current Committee members, all of whom have expertise in some aspect
of the field, and by the Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature, as
laid down by several generations of scientists over the last 30 years.

A better question is, "What is the value of scientific study if the
outcome is NOT subject to peer review?" (By the way, when you quote
abstracts, keep in mind that these are not peer-reviewed. That
subject came up in this thread as well.)

jeff

At 07:54 AM 5/8/2006, Gary K. Foote wrote:
>Greg - not aiming this at you or anyone else. Just wondering what
>is the value of
>scientific study if the outcome is subject to a vote?
>
>Gary
>http://www.meteorite-dealers.com
>
>On 5 May 2006 at 21:57, Adam Hupe wrote:
>
> > Every multiple stone
> > classification sharing the same nomenclature was voted on and approved.
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA
Received on Mon 08 May 2006 08:26:54 AM PDT