Video analysis of the escape flight of Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus: does the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis persist in continental North America? J. M. Collinson. 2077. BMC Biology 5:8. (Open access, link above goes to paper.)
Ah, yes. Another analysis
of the Luneau video concluding it was a Pileated Woodpecker, this time
from Scottish researcher Martin Collinson. Happily enough, Birder's World Field of View has full coverage, so I don't have to flog the departed pony.
Way back when, when word came out that Jackson, Prum, and Robbins were going to publish the first challenge to the Arkansas video, I wrote that criticism of published papers, often based solely on the materials presented, appear all the time in journals; findings are provisional and subject to challenge; and skepticism is an accepted and necessary part of the scientific process. Of course, the public isn't usually exposed to this in the way it has been over the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
In general, I think it is a sign of integrity and upstanding character for a person to admit they are wrong about something. Nobody at Cornell even seems willing to admit they might be wrong. I'm saddened that I've lost some respect for them in that regard.
As an aside, Collinson has a blog demonstrating a good deal of biting, irreverent wit. Really, the kind of stuff I enjoy reading. Yet I caught myself thinking that I might take his paper less seriously because of his style and personality, evident on the blog, even though 1) that should have no bearing on his peer-reviewed work, and 2) I liked his wit and personality because I can see myself there, and wouldn't want anyone to take me less seriously due to reading this blog. Conclusion: Another reason to remain anonymous here. To the many of you who already know who I am, I'm sure you think I'm brilliant anyway!
More on my own musings of the Ivory-billed saga here.
Yes, you are brilliant!
Posted by: Rob | 15 March 2007 at 12:34 PM
Of course, brilliant people are known to spend time with like-minded peers... ;)
Posted by: Hawkeye | 15 March 2007 at 05:37 PM
We already know who you are, Valerie Plame!
Posted by: rap | 16 March 2007 at 06:21 PM
All three of my friends have now weighed in...
Posted by: Nuthatch | 16 March 2007 at 08:45 PM
The less we know, the more they say. This back-and-forth is-too-is-not is just ludicrous and exhausting. Nothing is being learned by anyone. What a waste of papers (and electrons). What downgrades Collinson's work is his lack of credentials for the work he did for this paper- e.g., he is an amateur doing an amateur analysis. His expertise appears to be cell development. Because he knows how to write a paper in journal style, he was able to get this amateur analysis published in an online-only journal. Someday, online journals may be considered the full equivalent of traditional society-based journals, but that isn't the case now. Right now, most of these journals, including the one he published in, don't even have impact factor ratings. This journal is peer-reviewed, but the competition for publication space is minimal at best. Despite the peer-review, I regard this particular paper as little more than a blog-level argument.
Believe what you want about the IBWO, but not on the basis of this paper.
That he's just one more person who wants to argue on the basis of virtually nothing is revealed in his characterization of Cornell's very mild comment: he calls it "backlash." Oh please. They barely took notice of it. But he's loaded for bear...
Posted by: Is there anything else in the world to discuss? | 20 March 2007 at 06:16 PM
A nuthatch by any other name still sounds as smart.
Posted by: Mike | 21 March 2007 at 10:43 PM
'The less we know, the more they say. This back-and-forth is-too-is-not is just ludicrous and exhausting....'
Ouch, you saw through me there, right enough. I have no response :-)
The opinion of online journals carrying less weight than traditional printed society based journals might well be your view, but I can't see any support for it within my section of the community. Can't speak for other journals, such as ACE for example, but I published 4 times in BMC journals now, and each time the reviews have been tough and lengthy, and I've reviewed for them 3-4 times, and each time my reports have been tough and lengthy, and papers do get rejected, notwithstanding infinite journal space. In 20 years time, how many journals will *not* be online open access? not many of them, I think. Is there ANY justification for continuing to print, for example PNAS? When was the last time anyone went down to the library to read it in hard copy?
Posted by: Martin Collinson | 24 March 2007 at 09:56 AM