[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Dr. Jeff G. writes:

>All articles in the supplement issue get full peer review.  
>Only the MetSoc abstracts do not.  The MetBull is highly 
>peer-reviewed.  The Editor and Assoc. Editors produce 
>writeups, and a committee of 13 scientists review each one.
>Many writeups also go out for review by scientists outside 
>the NomCom.  I realize that this is not a traditional peer 
>review conducted by a independent editor, but it is a very,
>very high degree of peer scrutiny.
 
There is no argument here.  Instead of being solely a knee-jerk  reaction, 
Dr. Grossman even anticipated correctly what I  would logically reply regarding 
"traditional peer review", and  then replied to that.
 
The traditional gold standard in science is known as _Independent_ Peer  
Review, and includes the concept of Reproducibility.  This is what I  meant by 
"not especially peer reviewed process", and that was recognized in the  
anticipated reply.  I shouldn't have left this open to interpretation and  should have 
just said "Independent Peer Review Process", as I realize the  possibility of 
alternate interpretations of what I said.  In the  Meteoritical Sciences, 
there are severe restrictions on the distribution of  material in many cases, not 
to mention access to equipment.  The  consensus of the scientific community 
with access to both is to follow the  process Dr. Grossman describes is the 
generally accepted standard for this  specialized group of scientists.  My 
comments were in a specific context,  and in the specific context of an overly 
spirited attack by one respectable  list member on another.
 
Given the situation, the MetSoc process is administered in an excellent,  
efficient, professional and admirable manner regarding the important  scientific 
questions in the field.  It is administered by top-notch and  ethical 
scientists, one of which happens to be Dr. Grossman himself.
 
While the quality of the science is not at issue -it is usually impeccable-  
all review processes have their limitations.  In this case, we were in the  
discussion regarding "main mass".  There has never been a reason for a  
scientific study of the linguistic usage of "main mass", and historically it has  some 
very important precedents.  Dr. Grossman also was open to  alternate uses 
such as "main mass" of a group of paired meteorites, a minor but  important 
qualification.  Eric summed it up best with his post, the  "commercial" vs. the 
"personal view".  Other views are: views of committees  and other groups of the 
interested.  Many committees seek to  standardize application of terms in the 
public use within the scientific  community.
 
As a scientific editorial board, questions of scientific merit are all fair  
game for the committee, even if the committee is not an independent  function. 
 However, the jurisdiction of scientific committees traditionally  has not 
included the charge of clearing up ambiguity relating to  non-scientific issues 
of this popular and ingrained nature.  This debate on  main mass is still here 
and as Rob mentioned will be around for a while.   It is a hollow scientific 
issue generally without scientific content.
 
One other astronomical committee comes to mind, wrestling with a similar  
question:  Is Pluto a Planet?  Alternately, if a scientist calls Vesta  or Ceres 
small planets, this possibly could pass the PNAS independent  peer review 
process fine (though the word minor likely would be swapped  in).  The real 
concern is a commercial concern, and thus a more appropriate  body to take it on 
would be the IMCA, even if they took a page from the MetSoc  for guidance.  The 
IMCA still would be expressing an opinion as an interest  group and the debate 
wouldn't be solved.  But its members would create a  convention which is a 
meaningful issue relating to the trade and sale  of meteorites.
 
Regarding another comment I made, it truly should be a separate question to  
which I do not know the answer: If a meteorite is classified as L5 S2, and 
then  another independent peer reviewed work elsewhere decides it is an L5  S3, 
or something even more different, what are the transparent, reproducible,  and 
peer reviewed actions that follow which will be published by the Met Soc to  
challenge or augment the work of the original publication?  And in a  practical 
sense how well does this work given that the Met Soc is the de-facto  
authority on integrity of the World Meteorite Database (with a little help from  the 
British Museum, a certain commercial software, and a certain dedicated  German 
collector, and others)?
 
Saludos, Doug