salmon ranching
- Thread starter Derby
- Start date
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
The peer-reviewed study was published in January in the Marine Ecology Progress Series. It concluded that big schools of pink salmon could be interfering with the whales’ hunt for larger, more nutritious Columbia River king salmon and argued that could be one of the issues leading toward the population’s continuing slide toward extinction.
Templin claimed the paper and ensuing news coverage had led everyone to believe pink salmon were the cause of the decline of the killer whales although any member of the public who read the scientific paper would see problems with the analysis.
He offered the Board lessons in critical analysis, and the said the paper illustrated why Board members and the public should be skeptical of anything they read in the media.
After cautioning the Board to be skeptical, he added that “it shouldn’t be your job to try to read between the lines.”
Finally, he lit into fellow scientists.
“This also highlights for us that the peer review process is not perfect,” he said. He suggested the peer reviewers might have done a poor job on the Ruggerone paper, or maybe a good one, and “the editor might have decided to publish it anyway.”
Ruggerone was not immediately available for comment.
Just because a document was peer-reviewed, Templin said, doesn’t mean anyone paid attention to those reviews. Some scientific journals today just want the “splash factor,” he said.
There is some evidence the “splash factor” has become contagious in the U.S.
Templin claimed the paper and ensuing news coverage had led everyone to believe pink salmon were the cause of the decline of the killer whales although any member of the public who read the scientific paper would see problems with the analysis.
He offered the Board lessons in critical analysis, and the said the paper illustrated why Board members and the public should be skeptical of anything they read in the media.
After cautioning the Board to be skeptical, he added that “it shouldn’t be your job to try to read between the lines.”
Finally, he lit into fellow scientists.
“This also highlights for us that the peer review process is not perfect,” he said. He suggested the peer reviewers might have done a poor job on the Ruggerone paper, or maybe a good one, and “the editor might have decided to publish it anyway.”
Ruggerone was not immediately available for comment.
Just because a document was peer-reviewed, Templin said, doesn’t mean anyone paid attention to those reviews. Some scientific journals today just want the “splash factor,” he said.
There is some evidence the “splash factor” has become contagious in the U.S.
Similar threads
