GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265737739


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1690227506.1576111265737118873.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


Actually, dear David, I did not want to embarrass you, but on a second though - why not?



It was not a reviewer of the paper.  It was a person who discussed my paper before it went to print. It was his example, and he objected to have it published after it turned out that the calculation gave the right TMRCA. However, it would have been to much to explain those details in my example here, and who cares?  So, I called the person a reviewer. Technically, he was not.    



What say you?



Anatole Klyosov





>From: David Faux <
>It is never ok to publicly discuss a disagreement with the reviewer of a
peer reviewed journal.  



Wow! Now, dear David, it IS funny. Please notice that it was not "the reviewer", but "a reviewer". I hoped you know those nuances in English language better.



Regarding your desire to calculate and speculate who it (he or she) might be, you might consider to leave it for yourself.



Regards,



Anatole Klyosov  





This thread: