Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265729145

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:25:45 -0800
References: <><>
In-Reply-To: <>


Judging by the phletora of "unpositive" comments from people who are well
versed in the statistical nuances of what you are asserting, you are under
attack from all quarters. I have patiently permitted you to assail my
capabilities as a scientist, and stood by while others who dared to disagree
with you were castigated in one way or the other. It should be clear now
that your rationale and your methodology leave more holes than Swiss cheeze
and you have been called on it by myself, and those who are more savy than
I in the finer points of statistical arguments. Fine. I can understand
your frustration, but now a line has been crossed.

It is never ok to publicly discuss a disagreement with the reviewer of a
peer reviewed journal. None of it is "funny". As a scientist I thought
that you would be aware of this "unwritten rule". The peer review process
is in place to ensure that material with serious flaws does not achieve the
seal of approval presumed by official publication. I am very surprised that
the reviewer, who you obviously know (this is not an anonymous reviewer),
would sign off on the paper. He or she (and there are only a few so any of
us can deduce who you are speaking about, and you have used "he"), dared to
disagree with you (which is their role) so you went into the attack mode.
What is printed below should never have seen the light of day, and is truly
unbecoming of anyone who calls themselves a scientist. I can only hope that
you have written personally to appologize, but do think that a more public
acknowledgement of your error would be appropos.

David K. Faux

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Anatole Klyosov <>wrote:

> Now, a funny story. When my would-be publication in JOGG was going through
> a
> review process, a reviewer, who did not believe in my approach, had sent me
> his personal example, it order (apparently) to pin me down. His case
> considered 19 relatives, all having the common ancestor who was born in...
> well, he did not say at the beginning (naturally). Their 19 of 37-marker
> haplotypes contained 23 mutations. Therefore, 23 mutations in 703 markers
> would give 23/703/0.00243 = 13.464 generations (being ridiculously precise
> for the sake of these particular calculations), that is 337 years to a
> common ancestor. That is, their common ancestor lived around 1672, and was
> born some 25 years before that, that is around 1647. That was a condition
> of
> the reviewer - when the ancestor was born? I have tried to explain that I
> do
> not operate with single generations, since a typical margin or error
> precludes it, but the reviewer wanted to know. O.K.
> It turned out that the ancestor of those 19 haplotypes was born in 1642. I
> have obtained 1647. I fully understand that the margin of error, that was
> plus-minus 78 years, would allow me to be less precise. However, I object
> when people say that my error margins are "too optimistic". They just say
> it
> without seeing data, and most of them without ever calculating margins of
> errors. I have tons of data. Is there a difference?
> I would say that for many cases my margins of error are toooo conservative.
> It is O.K., I can live with it.
> Now, the funny part of it. I had asked the reviewer to include those data
> about his relatives (of course without names) and my calculations into my
> would-be paper, to illustrate "genealogical" calculations. He did not want
> it, so I dropped. He did not want me to give a positive example for the
> paper. He still remained skeptical. His mindset did not allow him to
> believe
> that mutations do follow certain rules. By the way, his name is well known
> around here. Don't ask, don't tell.
> Regards,
> Anatole Klyosov

This thread: