[Coral-List] FIELD OF GIANTS

[Rupert Ormond]

Dennis,

Totally agree with you there. Graduates and early stage researchers are 
increasingly re-discovering (or unaware of) basic findings that were 
described in papers 40 years ago. But a few weeks ago I did receive a 
systematic review from a graduate who had gone back to all the original 
papers - it was really refreshing and interesting.

Rupert


Professor Rupert Ormond
Co-Director, Marine Conservation International
Hon. Professor, Centre for Marine Biodiversity & Biotechnology, 
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh


On 24/09/2021 19:49, Dennis Hubbard via Coral-List wrote:
> Hi David:
>
> I share your concerns. My biggest concern involves the upcoming generation
> of reef scientists, many of whom appear to be discouraged from critically
> searching the literature. I have been told on more than one occasion that
> journals are increasingly demanding that only the most "up-to-date
> citations'' be included. As a result, important historical context is
> undervalued relative to claims like, "for the first time....". Leading
> universities have increasingly allowed PhD candidates to bundle some number
> of published papers in lieu of a formal dissertation. Unfortunately, these
> future scientists will lack the appreciation of many older papers that set
> the stage for modern research .As a result, too many "cutting-edge papers
> seem to be reinventing the wheel. This is all too common in "flagship
> journals" like *Science* and *Nature *that  severely limit citations
> (something on the order of 10-12 last time I checked). These practices make
> it easy to miss important historical context to the point that we may be
> seeing papers on the origins of atolls that fail to cite folks like Darwin,
> Daly and WM Davis.
>
> Dennis
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 8:41 AM David Blakeway via Coral-List <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Revisiting this 2021 article about the big GBR Porites.. It's a little
>> disappointing that the authors hadn't picked up on the 2020 article, IN THE
>> SAME JOURNAL, describing a Samoan Porites colony a full ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
>> more massive than the GBR example. Is literature review becoming an
>> afterthought?
>> Also, the abstract contains the sentence: "This is the largest
>> diameter *Porites
>> *coral measured by scientists and the sixth highest coral measured in the
>> GBR." As written, the first clause of this sentence is clearly incorrect.
>> It was probably intended to apply only to the GBR, but, if so, should have
>> been punctuated: "This is the largest diameter *Porites *coral measured by
>> scientists, and the sixth highest coral measured, in the GBR." (which still
>> seems to imply, to me at least, that non-scientists can't be trusted with a
>> tape measure - I'm sure that was not the intention).
>> Of course, it's impossible to write the perfect paper, and unfair to expect
>> the editor and reviewers to catch everything. But surely these oversights
>> shouldn't have got through? I think I am over-sensitive to this stuff but,
>> for me, they spoil what is otherwise a great little paper.
>> signed K.R. Mudgeon
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>