This is typical of the media feeding frenzy -- carefully orchestrated -- in the week before Christmas 2024. The gullibility of the media was displayed in all its glory. At that time there was no published article to underpin the claims made in the media, apart from an "advance copy" of the "final version" of an unpublished article. To make matters worse, that article cited at least one phantom supporting reference that cannot be found anywhere.
This is intriguing, and somehow rather sad. A while ago I flagged up the imminent appearance of an article by Bevins and nine colleagues that was clearly designed to discredit me and my work on the Newall Boulder:
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/12/here-come-heavies.html
This is the citation:
Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Scourse, J., Daw, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pitts, M., Field, D., Pirrie, D. and Power, M.R. In press. Further discourse on the enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1926: correcting the record. Journal of Quaternary Science.
Was this a phantom article, never written, but just thrown in speculatively into the press pack, to make it look stronger and more authoritative than it actually was??
This is the citation:
Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Scourse, J., Daw, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pitts, M., Field, D., Pirrie, D. and Power, M.R. In press. Further discourse on the enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1926: correcting the record. Journal of Quaternary Science.
The reference was cited in the “final version" of the long distance stone stransport article posted to the media in December……… here is a screenshot:
But in the reference list of the actual published version (January 2025) there is no sign of it, nor is it referred to in the text. Don't believe me? You can check this out via the link below:
In general, one should not refer to an article as being “in press” unless it has been accepted and is due for imminent publication.
So what is going on here?
Was this a phantom article, never written, but just thrown in speculatively into the press pack, to make it look stronger and more authoritative than it actually was??
Or was it written, submitted to the Journal of Quaternary Science and rejected by the Editor? I strongly suspect that this was the case.
I have tried to track this "further discourse" down. The Feb 2025 issue of the journal has just been issued, and there is no trace of anything by Bevins et al. I am checking via the JQS editorial department to see whether any article with this title was ever submitted for consideration; but I suspect that I won't get very far since there is a convention of confidentiality in such matters.
I have tried to track this "further discourse" down. The Feb 2025 issue of the journal has just been issued, and there is no trace of anything by Bevins et al. I am checking via the JQS editorial department to see whether any article with this title was ever submitted for consideration; but I suspect that I won't get very far since there is a convention of confidentiality in such matters.
The word "outrageous" comes to mind......
No comments:
Post a Comment