Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265736604

From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:30:04 -0000
References: <> <> <> <> <> <><>
In-Reply-To: <>

And peer review per se has nothing to with DNA. Perhaps you lot should blast
each other out of forum?

Sandy Paterson

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:] On Behalf Of David Faux
Sent: 09 February 2010 17:16
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster

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

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: