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)
Filed under: vincent fleury |