GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265735739


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:15:39 -0800
References: <809631690.1414571265719065460.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><2037247902.1419161265720034807.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><ea3bd9561002090725o24f89bf5n5f6d3fdaa2a66bf0@mail.gmail.com><35bbfc2c1002090812u217291c4g827827b729b3a48@mail.gmail.com><5F0DF600-3192-4CB2-9760-F9749B08D08C@vizachero.com><35bbfc2c1002090848p3474c35bmc2235d9111f5c939@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <35bbfc2c1002090848p3474c35bmc2235d9111f5c939@mail.gmail.com>


Again, this is all way way beside the point. The point of the post was
about peer review, to repeat peer review. Don't understand why the content
of this post seems to be confusing you. Lets leave the arguments about the
molecular clock aside, and focus on the topic of concern, peer review and
how those submitting material are expected to behave toward those in this
role. Quite simple really. Respect does not entail publically
criticizing someone who has been a peer reviewer of their recently published
paper. I have never seen this happen before since scientists know that if
they dis a person who have volunteered to be placed in this difficult role,
the credibility of the person submitting work to academic journals drops
precipitously. Just the way it is.

David K. Faux.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Janet Crawford <> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Vincent Vizachero <>
> wrote:
> > Janet,
> >
> > Let's leave aside the personalities involved: it seems that only
> > Anatole thinks that his own approach holds any merit.
>
>
> As I said to David - prove it.
>
> Janet
>


This thread: