Paper: "Photography in the ultraviolet and visible violet spectra: Unravelling methods and applications in palaeontology"

[enricosavazzi]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363076335_Photography_in_the_ultraviolet_and_visible_violet_spectra_unravelling_methods_and_applications_in_palaeontology

[Andy Perrin]

Interesting that the authors don't cite or give any indication that they are aware of the work by Kaye et al. on laser-stimulated fluorescence in violet (405nm) and other wavelengths in palaeontology. I described that work back here:

 

[enricosavazzi]

Yes, several references that may be regarded as important are not mentioned in this paper. On the other hand, the authors apparently did not set out to make a complete review of the field, as indirectly shown by their abundant use of "e.g." when quoting the literature. The terminology is also loosely used, and the methods not described in detail. "Photography in the ultraviolet" for example seems to mean in this paper photography of UV-excited VIS fluorescence, an imprecise and misleading use of the term that unfortunately is still quite common in scientific literature.

[Andy Perrin]

I think it's common partly because these authors and others don't even realize UV reflectography (or other kinds of fluorescence) exist. When you write a paper you don't have an obligation to review the whole field, but maybe at least be aware of the possibilities and directly relevant prior work?

[enricosavazzi]

On 11/6/2022 at 6:30 PM, Andy Perrin said:

[...] When you write a paper you don't have an obligation to review the whole field, but maybe at least be aware of the possibilities and directly relevant prior work?

Absolutely, no disagreement from me. It is also a reviewer's job and an editor's responsibility, although it may be difficult to find either ones with a technical competence in UV imaging. Especially editors, who are generally paleontology professionals with their own (typically narrow or niche) research interests and are working as editors for free. They are often unable to judge a paper in a field outside their own, and totally reliant on reviewers. Then they also have the problem of finding a suitably competent reviewer or two for a manuscript in a field they themselves are not familiar with.
Acta Paleontologica Polonica is a rather old-fashioned journal, not particularly known for publishing cutting-edge papers.

[Andrea B.]

It might be nice to relay some of these concerns to the journal's editors?

[enricosavazzi]

I don't think it would be very useful. The editors are most likely aware of their own limitations, and have to live with them. The chance that they will receive another submission dealing with digital UV imaging within a few years is very low. They may well receive submissions in other fields they are unfamiliar with in the future, and being reminded of their own limitations would hardly help them in practice to find more knowledgeable reviewers.

 

The way it generally works is that, after a few years, another paper in the same field may be published somewhere else in the world, and if the authors of this paper are knowledgeable enough, they will summarize the previous literature and point out the limitations, misunderstandings and errors in previous papers, especially recent ones. Poor papers and forgettable papers are not unique (nor very rare) in the scientific literature.

 

PS- I did publish once in the same journal, in 1982, when Poland was still part of the Soviet empire but the first stirrings of opposition were becoming apparent. A paleontology paper, nothing to do with photography.

[lukaszgryglicki]

Well I was born in 1982 - but Poland was not a part of USSR at that time. (I'm Polish). Poland was under the CCCP heavy influence, but not a part of it. Poland is independent since 1918.

 

[enricosavazzi]

1 hour ago, lukaszgryglicki said:

Well I was born in 1982 - but Poland was not a part of USSR at that time. (I'm Polish). Poland was under the CCCP heavy influence, but not a part of it. Poland is independent since 1918.

 

Yes, that is what I mean. Several nominally independent countries, de facto remotely ruled by the empire, and several other countries nominally members of a "union", where orders came from Moscow and the various presidents and prime ministers were careful to obey them speedily and without questions, lest they get a friendly visit by several battalions of armored tanks. There are other examples of the same type of empire in recent history, as well as examples of wannabes.

 

According to a Polish colleague of mine at Tübingen University at that time (who had suggested me to publish a paper there), the chief editor of that particular journal at the time was a rather well known scientist, who for reasons of his own scrupulously followed the political dictates of the government. At that time dissent was already gathering strength in Poland, and that scientist was rumored to show signs of mental breakdown because he had just realised that he had decided to side with the wrong people (the Soviet-friendly government) at the wrong time in history.

[lukaszgryglicki]

I started to understand anything after USSR already collapsed (Poland was free from their "help" in 1989 while USSR collapsed in 1991, anyway I was 9 yo at that time :p)