About reviews

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → About reviews

Юстус, 02.04.2012 20:13

To begin with, we will talk about the "Review" of Lavr Bolshakov on the " Inventory of invertebrates of the Voronezh Region "(Eversmania. 2006. № 5.) http://eversmannia.entomology.ru/eversmannia_05_47.pdf
It is mentioned more than once in the topics. Premoushen is bearing fruit...
At the end of each generalizing work, a tactful person "reads between the last lines": Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes (well, like: if you can do better, do it <I explain using Albantsky, because the author of the reviewed "review" demonstrates considerable difficulties in the Russian language; so, M. B., according to- albantzky will "get to him faster">).
Criticism (reviewing, among other things) presupposes a certain "proportionality" between the critic and the person being criticized: it is not only about knowledge of the subject area, but also about some "grounds" (including linguistic ones).
As for the "subject" area," there are probably no "perfect" generalizing works… Yes, and in the" language "relation," fleas "can be found in any writer (even,-it's scary to say, - in the "classic"; see: http://zozar-i-dugaga.livejournal.com).
But, if you do not "pull the cat by ... (option: tail)", then, in short: "fleas" are excusable, but Lavr Bolshakov in his "review" shows blatant (blatant) language illiteracy. And ignorance is unforgivable. (Does anyone need it, such a "review" written in "no" language?)
I will not search for "fleas" in the text, combing them out; for the "purity" of the argument, I will take the first (note bene! not the first "caught", but literally "first") two paragraphs of the text.
"The publication of regional lists of all (or many) groups of invertebrates at once becomes a kind of (but so far, thank God, voluntary) test for domestic research and teaching teams. For objective reasons, the implementation of such projects (so far few) often turns out to be embarrassing. This book has 51 authors and compilers, headed by O. P. Negrobov. Among them, there are several reputable experts on some (but not all) groups of invertebrates. The book includes a" Table of Contents "(p.3-5), two introductory sections (p. 6-20), the actual cadastre (p. 21-755) and a" List of References " (p. 756-825).
Surprisingly, it is impossible to immediately say how many species are included in the inventory and individual large groups of invertebrates - the lists are not numbered, the total figures are not indicated [??!]. We will not conduct such calculations, but we note that each of the 735 pages of the inventory contains about 15 species."
(I repent-I took a sin on my soul, - I inserted "spaces" where "it is necessary" on my own.)
Well, what is it? paa-let's go?
First sentence: "The publication of regional lists of all (or many) groups of invertebrates at once becomes a kind of (but so far, thank God, voluntary) test for domestic research and teaching teams."
Comments on the "first sentence": 1. Grammatical: More than half of the words (9 out of 14, not counting prepositions and words in parentheses) are in the same case (genitive). This is unacceptable even for a secondary school student. 2. Semantic: "Publications of ... lists ... become ... tests ... for ... collectives." The meaning is "dark": it is not clear why exactly " publications "(and not making lists, for example) become "tests"? "tests" of what? why, exactly, "collectives" (and if the" list "is compiled individually, then it is not a "test"?)?
Second offer: "For objective reasons, the implementation of such projects (so far few) often turns out to be embarrassing."
Remark on the "second sentence": The adjective" similar", taken together with the word" project", addresses the reader to the" project"that should have been mentioned above; but there is nothing similar ("similar") to" project "in the first sentence (much higher). Unless, - "publication" ... But, the "similarity" of the words "publication" and "project" is only in the first letter. Ale-oo! What did you want to say when you said " such a project? Difficulties with verbalization?
Third sentence: "The book in question has 51 authors and compilers, headed by O. P. Negrobov."
Comments on the "third sentence": 1. They usually look at pictures ... children (not, well, of course, and adults sometimes look at pictures, but the latter, as a rule, are pornographic), books, most often ... read. Did you mean looking at the cracks on the spine of a book when you said "the book in question"? 2. " The book has 51 authors and compilers." A book that has (I timidly hope that you did not use the word "has" in an obscene sense) 51 compilers - in the Guinness Book of Records! No, I don't believe that the book has "51 compilers"; the genitive case has failed you again. 3. Regarding Negrobov, please explain - in your opinion, who did he (Negrobov) "lead": the authors or the compilers?
(Interlude: Ugh! I'm tired of reading the first three sentences of your "review"text. I'm going to go get some milk, for" harmful " - in every sense of the word - work.
I'll come back...)

Comments

Pages: 1 2

02.04.2012 21:37, Лавр Большаков

Justus
Permanent participant
Novosibirsk
today, 21: 13 URL #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin with, we will talk about the "Review" of Lavr Bolshakov on the "Inventory of invertebrates of the Voronezh Region"..........(At the end of each generalizing work, a tactful person "reads between the last lines": Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes (well, like: if you can do better, do it <I explain using albantsky, because the author of the reviewed "review" demonstrates considerable difficulties in Russian; so, M. B., in Albanese, it will "get there faster">).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear You are our Justutus! I mean, Stirlitz. How do you own the great and mighty? Toto, these are not radio messages to send to the center.
First show samples of your epistolary genre, and then teach others.
And what is so "faster to reach" is correctly noticed - to whom it is necessary to reach better than if you write like Leo Tolstoy.

Likes: 1

02.04.2012 21:56, Юстус

Sentence four: "There are several reputable experts among them on some (but not all) groups of invertebrates."
Comments on the "fourth sentence": 1. An expert on "all" groups of invertebrates - who is this about? 2. You claim, without any hesitation, "There are several reputable specialists among them." Why, - "several"? - do you have a measure (criterion) of "credibility"? Och. I doubt his objectivity... and your immensely inflated self-esteem-no.
Sentence five: "The book includes a' Table of Contents '(p.3-5), two introductory sections (p. 6-20), the actual cadastre (p. 21-755) and a 'List of References' (p. 756-825)."
Comment on the "fifth sentence": Why does the book you are reviewing start from the third page? Did you get a book without a cover (or title page)? A book as a type of printed publication, as you should know, "includes" (in addition to the "Table of Contents" and others listed by you) the title page, cover, flyleaf, paragraph, and colophon ... Aleo-oo! What are you talking about, again?
Sentence six: "It is surprising that one cannot immediately say how many species are included in the inventory and how many large groups of invertebrates are included - the lists are not numbered, the general figures are not indicated [??!]".
Comments on the "sixth sentence": 1. The comma separating two sentences is missing. It seems that your secondary education is far from complete. 2. Amazing (in this sentence) – not that you are "amazing", but that you, not knowing the basics of the language, take up "reviewing" (about the magazine, - for now, I'll be silent). Lavr Bolshakov, if you name at least one "general figure", I will take all my words back. I (like any other educated person) know the following (Arabic; I will add - and Latin, etc.) numbers:: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Which one is "shared"? In fact, the question is rhetorical - there is no" total figure " and there can be no such thing. You, Lavr Bolshakov, are an illiterate person who confuses" number "and" number " (well, like, "letter" and "word").
Seventh sentence: "We will not make such calculations, but we will note that each of the 735 pages of the inventory contains about 15 species."
Comments on the "seventh sentence": 1. "Such calculations" - what are they? Or for you, "counts" = "numbering" (of the previous sentence)? If you don't understand, see: comment on the "second sentence". 2. "15 views fit on a page" - what confused you? If we talk about the types of fleas, then they (not savvy, of course) will fit on one page of the book by 2-3 orders of magnitude more.
(Interlude: Ugh! I'm tired of reading the next four sentences of your "review" text. I'm going to go get some milk, for" harmful " - in every sense of the word - work.
I'll come back...)

02.04.2012 22:25, scar

The cadastre of the Voronezh Region is the height of scientific illiteracy. A lot of work has been done - and the result is more harmful than useful, because surely there will be someone gullible who will gladly believe all this list. And if there are normally written sections, they lose their value because of their "environment". Like: "Well, who will believe it-this is the cadastre of the Voronezh region!"
Do you want to view normal cadastres? Please - Zamotailovsky in Adygea (I think it's on the Zinovsky site) or the works of Isaev and Yegorov in the Ulyanovsk region.
"2. You claim, without any hesitation, "There are several reputable specialists among them." Why, - "several"? - do you have a measure (criterion) of "credibility"? Och. I doubt his objectivity... And in your immensely inflated self-esteem-no"
We have a very narrow circle. Everyone knows each other. and they don't always know who is a specialist (=authority), and who just "writes".

This post was edited by scar - 02.04.2012 22: 29

Likes: 3

Likes: 1

04.04.2012 20:25, Юстус

Justus, I shake hands. The lack of literacy of speakers and writers, including scientists, is now egregious. It is necessary to talk about this and analyze specific scriptures point by point. That's just the names of their authors, I think, should not be called. The person who needs it will determine the authorship himself. It is necessary to fight precisely with low literacy, and not with specific people. Somehow I don't care about the latter. Otherwise, you are one of the most prominent figures on this forum. Are you really a zoologist?

If you did not forget to put ""(quotation marks) in the remark, then I remind you: not all that gold that" brightly " glitters (glitters, like, and under the nose can). But all-one thing: it's nice - I tried so hard… Thank you for your understanding!
As for your comment about the "names of authors", it is more expensive to argue with him. It is, of course, - so (it should be so)...
Pro domo sua (remarked in parentheses, - et ' I for didascal purposes, - in the hope that a wooden boy, from the South. Ukraine, Google and enrich your vocabulary, at least, "winged" Latin),
well, in my defense, I will say: there are still people who do not perceive critical comments made tactfully (with "obinyaks"). So, your fair suggestion, in relation to "our" reviewer, - like peas against a wall.
About the literacy of "our" reviewer-I won't say any more (the gaping "hiatus" in it is obvious)… About the sense of proportion - a few words.
In science (taken abstractly, as a field of intellectual activity), there is etiquette (one is considered permissible, the other is not; "other" is evaluated as "bad form"); moreover, science is also characterized by ethics (in this case, as a list of duties). The imperatives of scientific ethics (in contrast to the "Code...", to which our" reviewer " often refers) are unwritten. However, this does not exempt you from following them.
In the "review" under consideration, the author violates both scientific etiquette (quoting an anecdote) and scientific ethical norms (switching to the "personalities" of the authors of the reviewed work).
I guess I'm banging on an open door… I hope that the overwhelming majority of forum participants (with a few, even the rarest exceptions) have learned from school: with regard to the reviewed text, judgments are possible only regarding the text, only statements, positions, etc.are analyzed, but not the personalities of the authors of the reviewed texts (or their actions).
If someone, for example, will say :" And our something, our (reviewer, in the sense of) for bread with a torn string bag goes; and fse tudazh-cadastry criticize" - "our reviewer" will have to justify himself? (In the same series of "reviewer's claims" - a reproach to Tsialkovsky: "What are you so clean-shaven?"; a reproach to Chaadaev: "What are you so bald?"; a reproach to Dobrzhansky: "What did you run away from the USSR?")
Well, or this "reproach": "We know that D. V. Dubrovsky took material to the determination of E. M. Antonova (Zoological Museum of Moscow State University). The article published after that (Negrobov and Dubrovsky, 2002) was not very rich in species. The rest of the "otsebyatina" was urgently needed by D. V. Dubrovsky to defend his PhD thesis on pyadenitsy of the Voronezh region (in the local dissertation council, under the leadership of O. P. Negrobov). "[p. 50]
Where did" our reviewer " get this information (not from the book under review)? And he uses it, hoping for an associative "trail" of possible negative connotations. This is not just "bad form", it is a bad style and way of thinking.

Likes: 1

04.04.2012 22:11, Юстус

I wonder if someone approved you as a Great Master of Russian Literature?

My young daughter, once in a supermarket, dropped something on the floor, taking it out of the cart (in order to help her father put the purchased products on the" tape "of the cash register), swore:" Zumtoifelnohainmal!"
This is a "secondary feature", of course; but what does "Russian literature"have to do with it? I speak (and understand) German as easily as you do, I suppose (and I'll add English just in case).
However, an apple is from an apple tree... or, more correctly, " Let not the hand of the giver be impoverished." This "hand" should be" gently "shaken (or even tried?) and, of course, protected from "attempts". Are you , my dear fellow, printed in Eversmania? Do you want more? Well, why at my "expense"? Or is "getting personal" contagious? Your inappropriate remark has nothing to do with the topic.

04.04.2012 22:21, rhopalocera.com

My young daughter, once in a supermarket, dropped something on the floor, taking it out of the cart (in order to help her father put the purchased products on the" tape "of the cash register), swore:" Zumtoifelnohainmal!"
This is a "secondary feature", of course; but what does "Russian literature"have to do with it? I speak (and understand) German as easily as you do, I suppose (and I'll add English just in case).
However, an apple is from an apple tree... or, more correctly, " Let not the hand of the giver be impoverished." This "hand" should be" gently "shaken (or even tried?) and, of course, protected from "attempts". Are you , my dear fellow, printed in Eversmania? Do you want more? Well, why at my "expense"? Or is "getting personal" contagious? Your inappropriate remark has nothing to do with the topic.

I am one of the sponsors of Eversmannia. You are not even there - what does your "account"have to do with it?

For the rest , "According to your faith, let it be done unto you."

Likes: 1

04.04.2012 22:59, Fitzcarraldo

If you did not forget to put "" (quotation marks) in the remark

No, I didn't expect any quotation marks. You are right about gold, but in this case, I think we can say that ex ungue leonein pingere. "But I don't want to praise you..." Because your own comments work against you. If a number of authors have critical comments - even about a wall of peas, then what is the point of naming them? You will not change these authors, but you will turn against yourself those to whom your critical comments are addressed in the first place - people who are receptive to a positive example and need it. After all, you yourself, to a certain extent, violate scientific ethics by criticizing not only the text of the review, but also the personal qualities of a particular author. I understand that a discussion of a simple text can go largely unnoticed, and attacks on a particular figure (also found on the forum where you speak with exposures) will attract general interest and even make others read the review you are considering. (By the way, you can consider not only pictures, but also questions, problems, comments, etc. Remember at least the idiom "submit for consideration"). But still, this approach should be recognized as non-academic, and a bad example. Statements about the author's illiteracy (even if this is the case) cannot be considered ethical, because the author may be highly literate, but for some reason (in a hurry, etc.) made mistakes and inaccuracies in the wording of his thoughts. For example, it can be misspelled in the word didactic or write the name of the good Constant Eduardovich separated by the letter a. Why write about the fact that, in your opinion, the author's secondary education is not complete? This is a characteristic of the individual and not the text, although it is deduced inductively (and in general, what does it matter? the secondary education of the Candidate of Economic Sciences you mentioned was also incomplete). And your statement that the reviewer should only say what he has learned from the reviewed work is generally strange. If this were the case, then anyone could review special texts, not necessarily with any special knowledge. If the reviewer knows that a number of species are included in the faunal list indiscriminately (for example, if the author does not know how to identify the species of this group, and it is known for certain that he did not show" indiscriminate " species to specialists), then why can't this be said? It's all about how to say it.

04.04.2012 23:20, Wild Yuri

If someone, for example, will say :" And our something, our (reviewer, in the sense of) for bread with a torn string bag goes; and fse tudazh-cadastry criticize" - "our reviewer" will have to justify himself? (In the same series of "reviewer's claims" - a reproach to Tsialkovsky: "What are you so clean-shaven?"; a reproach to Chaadaev: "What are you so bald?"; a reproach to Dobrzhansky: "What did you run away from the USSR?")

Normal sophistry of Soviet party meetings and current talk shows. After all, if the character is really unshaven, doesn't that make you suspicious? What kind of lifestyle does he lead? Probably the wrong one. And if so, can he think correctly? "Form is a reflection of content," we were taught at school. In general, this is the case. An unshaven scientist is a suspicious scientist. And if you also have a torn string bag (with a Saiga carbine)... In general, it makes sense to believe the reviewers. And nafig himself "shovel" his work. It's difficult. You should stand up and say: "I join you! I'll catch him!" To the applause of the party assembly (the audience of the talk show in the hall).

04.04.2012 23:27, Юстус

After all, you yourself to a certain extent violate scientific ethics by criticizing not only the text of the review, but also the personal qualities of a particular author. < ... > But still, this approach should be recognized as non-academic, and a bad example. Statements about the author's illiteracy (even if this is the case) cannot be considered ethical, because the author may be highly literate, but for some reason (in a hurry, etc.) made mistakes and inaccuracies in the wording of his thoughts.

Dear Fitzcarraldo, aren't you confused? This is an Internet forum (I can hardly refrain from quoting the statement that has become "Internet winged": "This is the Internet, here they can ... ... ..."). What does "scientific ethics" and "academism"have to do with it? As soon as the forum gets the status of "academic", so overnight I will "brush up" my remarks. But when will it be? And will it be at all? And, in general, it is necessary? Aren't there enough "academic" journals?
As for "typos". Here - it is possible (sometimes-and it is necessary). In a magazine that is sold to a hypothetical reader for money, this is not allowed (a magazine with typos is a defective product). To avoid typos, there are regular proofreaders. And to give the thoughts formulated by the author of the article in a hurry a "readable look" - that's what editors are for.
What are you talking about?

04.04.2012 23:38, Лавр Большаков

Justus
segodnya, 21: 25
In the "review" under consideration, the author violates both scientific etiquette (quoting an anecdote) and scientific ethical norms (switching to the" personalities " of the authors of the reviewed work)
-----------------------------------
Where did you find such "etiquette"? And what do you understand about science in general and our science in particular? Anecdotes (not obscene, not political, but near-scientific) should be quoted just right, in this context it is very appropriate.
And what kind of" personalities " are there transitions to?
You have no direct relation to this branch of science, and you undertake to teach someone here-and this is with your "literacy", which is so rushing, but it does not rise above the baseboard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, or this "reproach": "We know that D. V. Dubrovsky took material to the determination of E. M. Antonova (Zoological Museum of Moscow State University). The article published after that (Negrobov and Dubrovsky, 2002) was not very rich in species. The rest of the "otsebyatina" was urgently needed by D. V. Dubrovsky to defend his PhD thesis on pyadenitsy of the Voronezh region (in the local dissertation council, under the leadership of O. P. Negrobov). "[p. 50]
Where did "our reviewer" get this information (not from the book being reviewed)? And he uses it, hoping for an associative "trail" of possible negative connotations. This is not just "bad form", it is a bad style and way of thinking.
------------------------------------------
For the unintelligent, I'll explain. The information comes from the book under review. There are links to sources in the annotations. If, for example, "(Negrobov and Dubrovsky, 2002) " - then this is based on the material determined by Antonova – and you can calculate how many species there are. And on the other – a link (I don't remember literally) something like "Dubrovsky data". This is the "otsebyatina" - information coming from this co-author, which was not verified by either Antonova or another specialist in the group.
And the fact that for a dissertation is not a state secret, but a well-known fact in this branch of science.
You have a" bad "way of thinking, Justus, and you don't understand the problem at all.

________________________________________

Likes: 3

05.04.2012 9:51, Лавр Большаков

About "numbers" and" numbers": if anyone is interested , then in a book of this genre there should be at least one phrase indicating "numbers" - how many types there are. This can also be called a "number" - in Russian, this is not essential. In the optimal form, there should be a more detailed paragraph about the composition of detachments. But none of this is there - it appeared only in the theses of the 13th Congress of REO as a "reaction", and then after probing the situation in ZIN and ZM.
Mr. Justus, your claims to "academicism" of thinking are not supported by anything - you are afraid to introduce yourself - so far there is only proximity to the pseudo-scientific elite, excess of free time and inability to it is useful to use it. We don't have time to bother with such an underground "literate", it's better to make another review - let the pseudo-elite run amok under our pioneer spotlight.

05.04.2012 10:14, Юстус

If a number of authors have critical comments - even about a wall of peas, then what is the point of naming them?

The meaning is simple: so that there is no "ambiguity". An illustration of the latter is the following remark:

One, sorry, shits, and the second-wipes. Well, the third one, which is paper, is the worst of all.

If you understand who we are talking about here, then I envy you in a good way.
And I, here, sit, "breaking my head": Well, even if "one", for the author of the remark, is me,"second" -who? You? (or the author of the" original " review? well, of course, not Fluorine-Chlorine...) But the third one has the most "unenviable" role. And who is the third? Was it the author of the remark? So what is there to complain about? It is necessary to endure. For, as they say, "paper (including toilet paper) will endure everything."
I sit and "break my head"…

In the end, I mean, what are you doing all this for - to show the general entomological community and others like it how not to write, or to organize a brawl and make fun of it to your heart's content?

So that there is no ambiguity in this, I will say that Eversmania is a good thing. I am in favor of having a lot of good and different (subject-related) entomology journals. But ...
At the same time, each of these journals should have a qualified editor (at least, who does not allow articles that settle personal scores to be published), a professional proofreader and competent (both in the narrow and broad sense of the word) authors.
In fact, my comments contain "claims" to functions, but not to personalities. Functions (as well as personalities) have names ("proper" ones, including). Claims to an unnamed function (whether it is an editor or an author) are unproductive in their abstractness.