...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
ES Researchers provide Enlightenment in a Sea of Ignorance
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jefferson Davis: [QB] More pseudo work by Clud trashed: [IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dH3ZETZ8ZlM/SAXttFN3k2I/AAAAAAAAACE/sD_aJjlTLUI/S220/AhmadOlmec.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dead: [qb] I can just run a name-check on [URL=http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=0&q=clyde+winters&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5]Google Scholar[/URL]. Most your papers are open access or from fringe/obscure journals, not legitimate peer-reviewed. A proper scholar came here several years back and told you this when he debated you on the Olmecs. He also called you a fraud. Most your papers are published in strange journals from India or pseudo-scientific Afrocentric journals (e.g. Sertima's [i]Journal of African Civilizations[/i]). Proper journals like [i]Current Anthropology[/i], have put out papers debunking your claims since the 90s. [URL=http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/vansertima.pdf]Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs[/URL] See footnote 10. Also: de Montellano, Bernard Ortiz, Gabriel Haslip-Viera, and Warren Barbour. "They were not here before Columbus: Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionism in the 1990s." [i]Ethnohistory[/i] (1997): 199-234. Again your claims are easily dismissed here (you are mentioned in a footnote). You were basically labelled a "hyperdiffusionist black supremacist" crank in the 90s. Since then no scholar even pays any attention to your nonsense. [/qb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [ . [/qb][/QUOTE]Clyde, you are taking advantage of some naiveté about peer reviewed journals and Pub Med. What thou claim is not accurate. Most of the "articles" you claim in journals like PNAS are your letters commenting on a legitimate article. These letters are NOT reviewed and just published-- i.e. like the vanity press [b]Current research Journal of Social Sciences[/b] which has no review and published your article full of typos so it was not even proofread. Similarly, the talk that is mentioned at the start of this thread, is NOT peer reviewed. Talks at regional meetings, particularly those that not part of organized sessions on a particular topic are NOT reviewed or given academic approval. [/qb][/QUOTE][QUOTE]LOL. You continue to be the Great Deciever. Secondly, article, letter etc., if published in a peer-reviewed journal is peer reviewed. You do not have a paper cited by PubMed unless it was peer reviewed by the Academe experts.[/QUOTE]WRONG. You are playing semantics assuming that your readers don't know the difference. Letters to the editor and articles to journals are peer reviewed BUT [b]what you have been sending in are COMMENTS AND RESPONSES which are not peer reviewed[/b] thus your claim that to be cited in pubMed guarantees peer review or acceptance by the scientific community is baloney. The reason your comment on Friedlander's paper is listed is BECAUSE it is attached to a valid paper and is included fro completeness. Just as another comment that just congratulated the authors was also listed. The paper in question is: Friedlander, J. S., et al. 2008 “The Genetic Structure of Pacific Islanders” PLoS Genetics January 18, 2008 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0040019 Clyde's comment is: Winters, C. 2008 “Skeletal Evidence of Early Polynesian and Melanesian Contact in East Asia,” Posted by PLoS_Genetics on[b] 26 Feb [/b]2008 at 13:45 GMT Originally submitted as a [b]Reader Response[/b] by Clyde Winters (c-winters@govst.edu) on [b]25 January[/b] 2008: Notice that the response was posted one day after receiving—i.e. no time for peer review. following is a letter from the editor of PLoS Genetics: "Thanks for your message – good question. Reader Responses are intended to be more informal and to encourage community dialogue. [b]As such, they do not undergo peer review by our editors or by external referees (whereas correspondence is treated differently and is peer reviewed).[/b] Instead, Reader Responses are reviewed by staff (to check they are not obscene, abusive, defamatory, libelous, or in some other way illegal or discriminatory; otherwise, we will post them). I hope this helps. Best wishes, Andy Andy Collings Publications Manager, PLoS Genetics I could multiply this with similar letters from Bioassays, and other journals, but this will suffice to show who is a liar and who is not. Readers of the discussion group can go to the open access PLoS Genetics and verify that my cites are exact. Clyde is trying to gain some measure of academic respectability, which cannot be gotten by publishing in vanity journals and self published Amazon books by leeching on to legitimate peer reviewed articles with non-reviewable "comments" and "responses." [QUOTE]LOL. You're just jealous that my work is published in many journals, and you only published the one paper in Current Anthropology. The fact my papers are cited at PubMed acknowledge they were peer reviewed.[/QUOTE]As I have shown this is not true. As to my record of refereed publications : Among my 48 articles in refereed journals are, 2 lead articles in [b]Science[/b], 3 articles in [b]Current Anthropology[/b], 1 article in[b]American Anthropologist[/b] in addition a number of book chapters and 4 invited Encyclopedia articles. Oh yes, a book published by Rutgers University Press and translated to Spanish by Siglo XX publishers. [QUOTE]Moreover, the number one cited paper on haplogroup M1 in East Africa, by Lluís Quintana-Murci Ornella Semino Hans-J. Bandelt Giuseppe Passarino Ken McElreavey & A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,[b] Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa[/b], was a letter in the journal Nature Genetics: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v23/n4/full/ng1299_437.html This Letter, is cited in 430 peer reviewed articles. This illustrates what little knowledge you have of the process of science and knowledge production. Letters to the Editor, in Science, is just as important as the research article.[/QUOTE]Again , playing with words, As the letter from the editor of PLoS Genetics pointed out {b]Letters to the Editor[/b} ARE peer reviewed. The problem is that [b]what you send in are NOT letters to the editor but non-reviewable "comments and responses"[/b] How long can you fool your followers? [/QB][/QUOTE]you lot still follow 'the leader'? ha ha ha ha [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3