Dear Leo. I want to assure you that my reaction was not specifically directed at you. Other well known crystallographers have also been suspended for a short time, and I must apply the same rules to everyone.
Yes, I can see that the paper is already published on the web, but I still think that it would have been better to just include that link even though not everyone will have access to ScienceDirect. You might also have explained briefly that the statistics are remarkably poor, and that it is very difficult to conclude on the basis of the appearance of a few very weak peaks that the material includes a second phase (only) for x>0.3 And yes, J.Mag.Mag.Mat. is a well respected journal that includes a lot of crystallography, especially with neutrons. It is disappointing that such poor data is accepted. Alan. PS In copying my reply to the Rietveld list, I naturally take responsibility for revealing the link to the paper. If it is already published on ScienceDirect, then people can publicly comment on it IMHO. On 9 May 2015 at 15:26, Leopoldo Suescun <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Alan, > Thanks for your clarifying opinion. > > I just want to clarify that my only violation on this issue was the > attached figure. > > There was none related to the figure itself that is published on-line (for > people with access - > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304885315300408). This > is a web version that is ahead of the paper version by many months, that´s > why I said that it will be published in September 2015. > > Additionally I just wanted to show an example, of many I have seen, but > was very eye-catching. I did not wanted to make a point respect to the > specific journal or the authors, that was the reason for not linking to the > on-line version of the paper itself... > > Maybe wrong way of rising the point (the attachment) and wrong choice of > words (sounding this was "unpublished") but my worry and that of many are > the point (unfortunately almost nobody referred to it) and maybe we should > start looking for ways to prevent this kind of degradation in generally > trustworthy journals... > > With best regards, > Leo > > > 2015-05-09 6:39 GMT-03:00 Alan Hewat <[email protected]>: > > Dear Rietveld list. >> >> Good to see so many people asking for the list to be continued. And even >> an example of an interesting scientific question immediately answered by an >> expert. Encouraging. >> >> So why do I forbid "sinful" attachments ? (No, it's not because I'm >> getting old and snarky, though we all do eventually :-) Think of the >> Rietveld list as a kind of relaxed "Twitter", except that you are not >> limited to 140 characters. And what about Google's decision this month to >> favour sites that can be used on a mobile phone ? Yes, even oldies use >> mobile phones for email. SMS is another example of beauty in brevity. >> >> Then the Rietveld Archive is an excellent record of past discussions - >> without the attachments. Messages that rely on attachments are then often >> incomprehensible - look up that message on >> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Frankly, if you need >> more than that, put it on a webserver with a link to it. Such links are >> preserved in the archive. >> >> If you see my own warning about "no attachments" as an attachment :-) >> perhaps you should check how your email client is set up. Or tell me how I >> can do it differently with SYMPA www.sympa.org I didn't design the mail >> server nor the mail archive. Clearly, it is difficult to enforce a simple >> "no attachments" rule, so what would it be like policing a "small >> attachments" rule ? Even if you personally have lots of space for email, >> our webserver (for which we don't pay) would still have to distribute ~1500 >> copies of your "small attachment". >> >> In this particular case, a figure from an unpublished paper was published >> and criticised out of context. Is that really fair? If it's from a >> referee's copy we shouldn't even refer to it, let alone publish it. If it's >> a pre-print, just publish a link to it. But there are already plenty of >> examples in the published literature if you are looking for evidence of >> regression. >> >> So where are the "Apologies"? There are none :-) "Excuse me" is what >> people say when they elbow their way through a crowd. (I only do that when >> I really need to). So if you really need to attach a document, go ahead. >> After all, you can still read the list on the archive. >> >> Alan >> > ______________________________________________ * Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE * <[email protected]> +33.476.98.41.68 http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat ______________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Please do NOT attach files to the whole list <[email protected]> Send commands to <[email protected]> eg: HELP as the subject with no body text The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
