enough

I have had enough of this business with Vincent Fleury, but I will not give up until I made clear

  • that I wasn’t the only one to say that his paper need validation
  • give a review, my review, of the paper.

The first part will be easy and fast, the second one easier but more lengthy as I decided to limit the time spent on dloale to 10 min, daily. I’ll post bits, in a new category: Fleury’s Elasto-Plastic Model of Avian Gastrulation.

Let’s finish with the Dr Jamie Davies opinion concerning this paper, his personal opinion, posted before his statement as Editor in Chief of Organogenesis. On october 1st, he wrote:

Your comments about the word ‘hypothesis’ are interesting. The use of the word ‘model’ (rather than, say, ‘mechanism’) in Fleury’s title made, at least in my opinion, the use of a second qualifying term such as ‘hypothesis’ unnecessary. I felt it was necessary for the renin-angiotensin paper because, without that word, the title would have sounded like a definite statement whereas Fleury’s title was clearly about a model only.

This was in reply to:

Certainly it’s quite common to publish hypothetical models to facilitate discussion and it’s a good policy to promote such work. But it is also quite common, and it should be mandatory IMO, to clearly indicate the status of the work. Your journal seem to use such annotation, e.g. « Hypothesis: A New Role for the Renin-Angiotensin System in Ureteric Bud Branching », Ihor V. Yosypiv, Organogenesis, Vol: 1, Issue: 1, Pages: 26-32

As I said previously, Fleury should know this one before he posted his comment, trying to make it look as if distorted what Jamie Davies had said.
Make your opinion. Mine I can’t post. But I’ll post my opinion about the paper and I’m sure it is worst.

I would like to have Fleury’s comment on that. (he doesn’t seem to be very loquacious recently)

6 Réponses

  1. Hey, Fleury is back at the comments section but he forgotten to comment this one!
    Quite selective and really, really repetitive comments.

  2. […] the EPMAG paper I made it clear that even the editor in chief of the journal that published it consider that it’s an […]

  3. […] had kind of a discussion here to prove that even the editor in chief of Organogenesis consider the paper as an hypothesis, but Vincent Fleury still present it as a published work that could support his theory: No, […]

  4. […] ce qui se révèle être non pas seulement mon avis, mais aussi celui de l’éditeur en chef de la revue qui a traité personnellement l’article, ayant fait l’objet d’une revue qui […]

  5. […] il y a une façon extrêmement simple de réagir. Expliquer clairement leur arguments. Le faire sans tenter de déformer les propos des autres, ou les miens d’ailleurs. Pour moi les règles élémentaires du savoir discuter […]

  6. […] the past you have tried to distort what was said concerning your model and made me publish part of private messages to prove you wrong. You have also tried to rephrase […]

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :