BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Klaas van Dijk" data-source="post: 3577441" data-attributes="member: 115771">This is a correct observation. The Porter et al. (2015) letter of rebuttal at <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09397140.2015.1023424" target="_blank">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09397140.2015.1023424</a> has at the moment 2246 views (the most read article has 2303 views). -------------------------------------------------Richard Porter wrote on 15 July 2015 an e-mail about this issue to COPE."From: Richard Porter; To: Iratxe Puebla; Cc: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:54 PM; Subject: Taylor & Francis and the COPE Code of Conduct for journal publishersDear Iratxe,I thought it would be helpful to those members of COPE examining this matter to have this further input from me. I would personally be satisfied if Taylor & Francis were able to:* Provide convincing evidence that the study in Al-Sheikhly (2013) was actually undertaken. In this respect the detailed background material I have provided about his ‘movements’, the quoted first draft (the ‘Susie Alwash’ paper) and evidence of his previous ‘form’ are important exhibits. It would also be useful, I feel, to consult Eden Again: Hope in the Marshes of Iraq (2013) by Suzanne Alwash. In this Al-Sheikhly (Omar) is extensively quoted, including on Basra Reed Warbler, but surprisingly makes no mention of the study: Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013).* Make available a copy of the research data that was collected in the field for such a monumental and ground-breaking study. That is a very reasonable request that hitherto has been refused by the authors of the paper and the editor of Zoology in the Middle East.* Demonstrate that it is possible to undertake such a highly detailed study of polygyny – essentially in two years -  of a mobile and secretive organism without any method of marking individual birds or identifying males and females in the field. In this respect please draw their attention to the following that was published in Zoology in the Middle East by Porter et al:"Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013) reported figures and drew conclusions that, in our opinion, are impossible to achieve without undertaking a long-term trapping and colour-ringing programme to allow identification of individual male and female birds. They claim inter alia that ‘971 nests of Basra Reed Warbler were studied’, most over the two-year period 2006 to 2007, and that ‘males are often polygynous (42.9%, n= 317 observed males).’ There is however almost no mention in the paper of the methods and resources employed to gather such data. Furthermore, Al-Sheikhly et al. claimed that “the identification of male and female Basra Reed Warblers was unmistakable in the field,” which we contest is impossible, given that the species like all other Western Palearctic Acrocephalus cannot be sexed visually, only through in-hand examination and perhaps biometric data, which the authors of the study did not attempt. Neither is there any explanation of how counts were carried out and extrapolated to population figures given for Iraq’s major marshland areas. Following questioning, the authors admit ‘that the occurrence of polygyny needs to be confirmed by a more comprehensive study.’ If their precise figures as originally presented lack credibility, then it draws into question any of the paper’s other results."Finally, may I put this call for COPE’s intervention into context? This is a ground-breaking paper and one of the most important to be published on bird ecology and populations in the Middle East – and probably the most important ever in Iraq. It involves a globally Endangered species – and a threatened wetland complex  - the most important in the Middle East.Poor or fraudulent science will help neither the species, its habitat nor Middle East ornithology and conservation. That is why we wish this complaint to be taken very seriously.I hope this helps, Kindest regards, Richard Porter"----------------------------------------------------------------A summary with a timeline of of the processing of these complaints is copy/pasted from <a href="https://pubpeer.com/publications/969CF510137B45F3DCAD9C40B03462#fb121710" target="_blank">https://pubpeer.com/publications/969CF510137B45F3DCAD9C40B03462#fb121710</a> "It turned out that the publisher was unwilling to retract the paper. Taylor & Francis is member of COPE. We have therefore decided to file complaints about this case to COPE. Three complaints were filed in the first half of July 2015. COPE informed us on 26 July 2015 that they had decided to process the complaints. Taylor & Francis would be requested for comments on our concerns. We would be copied in this correspondence. COPE told us on 4 August 2015 that they would act as a facilitator of a dialogue with the publisher. COPE informed us on 13 July 2016 that the processing of the complaints was terminated. There was not yet a dialogue with the publisher. The correspondence was never received. Questions would not be answered."---------------------------------------------------------------I am hereby informing the readers and the followers of this thread that COPE has recently started with badmouthing about me, also in public outlets. I am on the other hand asking all the time people and organisations around COPE for access to the raw research data of Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013), see above for some motives. Invariably, all these requests are met by silence. I also ask all the time people and organisations around COPE for comments of (some) experts with opposing views (together with names and contact details and a declaration that these experts are willing to communicate with us about their comment). There is invariably never a (proper) response on such requests (or this request is met by silence), and I have until now not received not a single of such a comment from an expert. This implies of course that there is, nowhere on Planet Earth, an expert who rebuts / refutes that Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) contains fabricated and/or falsified data.I however fail to understand why COPE simply does not respond on queries for access to the raw research data of Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013) and on queries for comments of experts with opposing views (note that this is extremely easy for COPE, given the backgrounds of the people at COPE), but in stead has started with badmouthing about me. Is there anyone over here who can shed some light about this issue?</blockquote>

Verification