Re: Correct info re Wolter's academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.

Inger E.Johansson wrote:  NWkEf.43708$d5.199763@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:43e1d80f$0$58490$dbd49001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tom McDonald wrote:  s2gEf.126$234.115@xxxxxxxx,
 > 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.


There is such a thing as project management,
with a lot of interim reports and feedback.
I am also used to work with advisory commissions.
If the commission is competent, the result is a
reliable, peer-reviewd, report.


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).


But, looking at what is presented and discussed here
in the group, the peers were not influential enough.

[...] 

Peter,
how long will you and Tom tell lies about Scott Wolter?
He has an academic background, and you can't have missed that have
you done the minor search needed to have it confirmed!

[More irrelevance snipped]>

So what? Can't you read? I was not talking about
Wolter's credentials and I certainly told no lies.
I said that there are more ways to get your work
(peer) reviewed than by publishing it in a pr journal.
And Tom wrote clearly in favour of Wolter's position.

But I forgive you because you have no positive
experience with publishing your work.

--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°



.

Relevant Pages

  • 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. ... 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. ... senior geologists and geological engineers. ... other professionals in the relevant field. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Zilhman and the rest completely misunderstand waterside hypotheses
    ... published in a peer review journal and one is goin through peer review ... couldn't make the case for a PhD. ... criticise the scientific basis of anyone else's website." ... do you assume that because she dared to report some snippet ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)