[meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)

[Jeff Grossman]

Although I'm staying out of this animated discussion, I will tackle 
this question:

All scientific publications are the subject of votes of a sort.  It 
is called the peer-review process.  That is the kind of vote new 
meteorite descriptions receive from the NomCom, which functions as a 
scientific review panel.  The vote answers the question: does this 
research meet current scientific standards of methodology, 
documentation, completeness, accuracy, reproducibility, and reporting 
such that it can be published by the Meteoritical Society in the 
Meteoritical Bulletin.  These standards are defined both by the 
current Committee members, all of whom have expertise in some aspect 
of the field, and by the Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature, as 
laid down by several generations of scientists over the last 30 years.

A better question is, "What is the value of scientific study if the 
outcome is NOT subject to peer review?" (By the way, when you quote 
abstracts, keep in mind that these are not peer-reviewed.  That 
subject came up in this thread as well.)

jeff

At 07:54 AM 5/8/2006, Gary K. Foote wrote:
>Greg - not aiming this at you or anyone else.  Just wondering what 
>is the value of
>scientific study if the outcome is subject to a vote?
>
>Gary
>http://www.meteorite-dealers.com
>
>On 5 May 2006 at 21:57, Adam Hupe wrote:
>
> >  Every multiple stone
> > classification sharing the same nomenclature was voted on and approved.
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman       phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey          fax:   (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA