Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin
From: Bob (bbruner_at_uclink4.berkeley.edu)
Date: 09/08/04
- Next message: Al: "Re: What REALLY destroyed ancient Jericho?"
- Previous message: ZARDOZ: "What REALLY destroyed ancient Jericho?"
- In reply to: Archimedes Plutonium: "Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Next in thread: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Reply: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:37:52 -0700
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:18:36 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
<a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote:
>--- quoting Reuters write-up on a SCIENCE article ---
>
>Pre-Human Walked Upright 6 Million Years
> Ago -Study
>
> Thu Sep 2, 5:55 PM ET
>
>--- end quoting ---
>
>I had seen this information on a PBS TV program some years ago. So I was
>confused as to why Reuters or SCIENCE magazine bothered to publish it
>since the story is 2 years old
Nova is not a scientific publication. Science is. It is common enough
that things that get published are already known, because there has
been some informal presentation of the results, perhaps in a
preliminary form. Sometimes partial results are presented at a
meeting; in such a case, the meeting report will be referenced in the
formal publication.
Of course, one issue is what was actually said two years ago. Did they
have the full story, or merely some preliminary data, or merely a plan
and some intuition... we will measure ... and we suspect it may give
evidence that ... Reconstructing exactly what got said (and what you
remembered from it) may or may not be worth the effort.
Why 2 years? Many possible reasons; I've seen much longer. One
possible reason is simply putting together "the whole story" before
the formal publication. In any case, it is almost certainly due to the
authors. As to the journal publishing it, their frame of reference for
novelty is what has been formally published. If it is a formal
confirmation of something "long rumored", and thus known to be
exciting, that may simply make it all the more appealing for them to
accept it.
Another possible reason for delay was that something was
controversial. At the end of the article, they show the date the
article was received and the date it was accepted. If the difference
is more than 2 months or so, for Science, it may mean that there was
some dispute. (But it also may not be of any great significance.)
As to Reuters, all they did here was to publish a press release from
Science. They are basically irrelevant.
bob
- Next message: Al: "Re: What REALLY destroyed ancient Jericho?"
- Previous message: ZARDOZ: "What REALLY destroyed ancient Jericho?"
- In reply to: Archimedes Plutonium: "Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Next in thread: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Reply: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
