Those rules are excellent at understanding hard biology(biological function) but horrible at understanding behavior.
Such things as reproductive behavior, social behavior, etc. Are what keep the animals in existence. Behavior is loose to ensure survival. So for you to make it about peer review, is purely academic, pay particular attention to 2.
ac·a·dem·ic


/ˌakəˈdemik/

adjective: academic
1. of or relating to education and scholarship.
"academic achievement"


2. not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest.
"the debate has been largely academic"
synonyms: theoretical, conceptual, notional, philosophical, hypothetical, speculative, conjectural, suppositional; More
impractical, unrealistic, ivory-tower

"the debate has been largely academic"

Such tools are radio telemetry where an animal is removed from nature, having major surgery, then quickly returned, effectively renders all results "academic" as the method actively changes behavior. As a field rat in the desert, what telemetry reveals is, how an individual reacts to major surgery and being followed by a team of predators. This explains the tools that are missing in peer review. Wrong tools, pit tags, radio telemetry, wrong rules, exacting, math driven, using rules of hard science, biology, not rules of ethology. Thanks have a great day.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]