Re: Wolter on peer review.

Tedd Jacobs wrote: 
"Tom McDonald" wrote...

Scott Wolter has asked that this email be posted here to help us
understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the
KRS received. It is from an email relating to his current work on
the Spirit Pond stones. Except for removing identifying
information about the original email's recipient and other
personal information, I haven't altered Wolter's email in any way.


-----------------------------------------------------
Begin Wolter's email:


From: Wolter, Scott Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: Spirit Pond Investigation &
Peer Review

Dear -- -- ,



I thought I would drop you both a note with a couple of points
to consider during your discussions about our proposal to
perform a forensic investigation of the Spirit Pond rune
stones.  The first point is relative to --'s comment
about an apparent lack of peer review of the geologic work we
performed and reported in our book.  The fact of the matter of
is that my report has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight
senior geologists and geological engineers.



in what journal was this geologic work published.

I don't know whether it was so published or not. That does not mean that Wolter's geological work on the KRS didn't receive adequate review prior to his making it public.

Wolter isn't an academic, and he is apparently used to having his work critiqued in the way he outlined--getting feedback from other professionals in the relevant field(s). He gave the names of eight folks who he says read and replied to his work on the KRS in writing; and the looking-in-to by the Swedes.

It is useful to use peer reviewed journal articles. However, that process is not the only way to knock the rough edges off of a professional study, or to point out problems with the work. It is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.

However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr. Mather, of course).

Something that comes up often among non-archaeologists who get involved in this sort of study is this question of peer review, which ultimately is a question of whether it is possible to verify that the work in question has been vetted by knowledgeable professionals in the relevant field(s), and the author has made appropriate changes in response to valid criticism. Many non-archies feel that the requirement to publish in a peer reviewed venue, when their work has in fact been critiqued by them as knows their beans, is a cheap way to avoid dealing with their material.

In most cases, it makes sense to require non-archies to make their case via peer review, since many folks who want the attention of professional archies haven't got the goods.

However, how do you evaluate the work of someone like Wolter? He provides the names of the folks who did write reviews of the KRS work. He has put his professional reputation on the line. He is asking for feedback. Why not give him honest feedback and see if he responds like a kook or like a professional?

I personally am not convinced by Wolter and Nielsen's book that the KRS is legit; though it has given me pause--much pause. However, without honest critique, I am not willing to write it off, either. Let's give him a hearing on his own work, on its own merits.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Wolter on peer review.
    ... understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the KRS received. ... It is from an email relating to his current work on the Spirit Pond stones. ... Institute of Professional Geologists National ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Correct info re Wolters academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the ... KRS received. ... senior geologists and geological engineers. ... reliable, peer-reviewd, report. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the KRS received. ... It is from an email relating to his current work on the Spirit Pond stones. ... senior geologists and geological engineers. ... to heart and changed his reports accordingly, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Correct info re Wolters academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the KRS received. ... senior geologists and geological engineers. ... reliable, peer-reviewd, report. ... Since you don't object to the lines where this false information is feed, then you yourself have written under same false information! ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Correct info re Wolters academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the KRS received. ... It is from an email relating to his current work on the Spirit Pond stones. ... senior geologists and geological engineers. ... reliable, peer-reviewd, report. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading