Its not a case of ordering a peer review. When a scientific manuscript is submitted to a scientific journal (e.g. Nature), if the topic is found to be an interesting one, it is sent out for peer-review to in general three people, sometimes more, rarely less. These three people are considered experts in their field, however this is not always the case, as an individual may be an expert on climate mapping, but have no idea of the difference between a rock python and a Burmese. This is were the review failed in the case of the original 2008 paper. This is no-ones fault. It is virually impossible to find a recognized person to review a paper that is an expert in all areas the paper covers. If I were reviewing that paper, even if I was not a herpetologist, I would research the life history and range of the animal in question.

Pyron et al, (2008) is not a review of the original Rodda paper, but actually a separate piece identifying the failure of the Rodda paper to take into consideration a number of factors.

The USGS paper will have been reviewed, however it will have been reviewed internally within the USGS, just as papers written by USDA researchers must before it can be submitted for publication. The difference here is that this report would never be published in a scientific journal. Not because of the science, but because of the length (323). Those that reviewed it internally obviously have little to no understanding of the Pyron paper and of the nature of these reptiles life histories and requirements. The fact that this paper is not published in a peer reviewed internationally recognized journal means that it is unlikely to attract the interest for a study to be undertaken opposing it.

Warren

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

[ Show Entire Thread ]