Patrick:

I have known for a very long time that I am not a writer, but a field person with limitations. I fully expected that the editor, associate editor, and reviewers would have a field day with my writing style. But the situation was so cut and dry, the evidence so strong, that it never crossed my mind that the sparate species scenario would be discounted let alone ridiculed as was the case by the first associated editor.



My first draft had been a shorter communication. When that was panned by the associate editor and one reviewer (the other reviewer just rejected my thesis and did not provide a review), I wrote the editor a lengthy letter providing more insight into the situation. He came back and suggested I convert the paper into a full length article and he would send it to a different assoc. ed. That is the reason for two separate peer review processes.



The second associate ed. and one reviewer both indicated that at best, I had discovered some variant of C. tenuis. In addition, I had purposely written the paper in a semi-narative format as I considered that the process in which the new species was discovered in itself was worth describing. The assoc. ed. wanted me to discard the real manner in which the species was discovered and in its place, indicated that after treating my sample of Contia statistically, I had teased-out the new form of Contia from the raw data. In other words, he openly urged me to be dishonest by describing a discovery process that never occurred.



Both the asso. ed. and one reviewer indicated I needed greater statistical treatment of the data. The third reviewer indicated I should discard the statistical treatment since statistics are not warranted when there is no overlap in defining characters. I had mention this very thing to Dr. Robert Mason here at OSU. Why is it necessary to prove a statistical difference between black and white. Bob's response was that such statistics are essentially expected these days. As it turned out, I incorporated every suggestion and comment by that one reviewer except his suggestion to remove the statistics. I think it was the contrast between this one reviewer's comments and the other 5 reviewers that was one of the major reasons the editor rejected his assoc. ed. recommendations and accepted the paper.



As mentioned, I am a field person and not a writer. I probably have sufficient information on Contia for 2-3 additional papers. And just laying fallow are a score of projects either completed or near completion on C. bottae that could be organized and drafts written. At this point, it just isn't worth the hastle so until such time I get back in the mood, all of this 'good' stuff will lay fallow.



Actually, this past late winter, I did get the urge and started a draft of a paper that describes a discovery every bit as 'exciting' (to me) as the new species, the occurrance of two reasonably distinct size morphs in the Rubber Boa. But here again, the writing ceased in April once the new field season began. I am far better off if I can have someone else to join forces much as I did with Dr. Glenn Stewart in our project involving the Southern Rubber Boa. He has partly retired and no longer wishes to take part in these types of endeavors.



By all means, send me your address and I will get off a reprint.



Richard F. Hoyer

[ Show Entire Thread ]