2016 in marine mammal paleontology

[Boesse 1,751]

Hey all, I just finished writing my annual review of the year's publications in marine mammal paleontology  - nearly 60 papers this year.

 

http://coastalpaleo.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-in-review-advances-in-marine.html

 

Cheers, Bobby

[ynot 7,240]

Thanks Bobby!

[Fossildude19 14,871]

Thanks for the link, Bobby.  

Good reading material. 

[siteseer 1,725]

On 1/12/2017 at 10:02 PM, Boesse said:

Hey all, I just finished writing my annual review of the year's publications in marine mammal paleontology  - nearly 60 papers this year.

 

http://coastalpaleo.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-in-review-advances-in-marine.html

 

Cheers, Bobby

 

 

Bobby,

 

I just happened to read that later the same day you posted it.  It's the first time I've checked your site on the same day new stuff came up.  Thanks for the overview.  I hadn't heard of several of those papers.

 

Jess

[Doctor Mud 826]

Thanks Bobby,

 

A lot of work must have gone into this!

I liked the aggressive disclaimer that this is done in your spare time - so no one can  be fussy about typos.

[Boesse 1,751]

thanks guys! And @Doctor Mud you wouldn't believe the snarge that people have demanded - like "this paper and this paper were published in 2015 but you don't have them. I see you erroneously posted them last year (2014). You should move them to this post." Oh right, just found it - here it is (three years ago! from my 2013 research review):

 

XXXXX said...

The citation for the papers published by Clementz et al. (2014), Noakes et al. (2013), and Velez-Juarbe (2014) should be updated because the volume for the paper by Noakes et al. (2013) has been published (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00310182/392/supp/C) while the volume containing the papers by Clementz et al. and Velez Juarbe has been published (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00310182/400/supp/C). Therefore, the papers by Clementz et al. and Velez-Juarbe should be removed from the list they have been published this year. Furthermore, the citation for the paper by Hampe et al. (2014) should be changed because that paper has been published in 2014, not 2013 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/.U40iCSg1eFI), and the citation for Hadrokirus should be changed to include the page numbers even though this genus was electronically published in 2013.

June 2, 2014 at 7:21 PM

 

Robert Boessenecker said...

Yeah, so, I'm not going to remove anything. All of these were published online first in 2013; the point of this post was to cover all of the new publications and discoveries for 2013. Likewise, these will NOT appear on my 2014 list, which will only include papers published online during 2014. I've graciously included the links for all of these papers, so readers have the opportunity to check out the actual article on its web page. Lastly, as this is an informal blog and not a peer reviewed publication, I conduct it informally.

[Doctor Mud 826]

Sheesh - yeah, that sounds like a journal review..... That would certainly rub me up the wrong way.

I think it's fair enough to take online first as the first date of publication. It's citeable from then, otherwise you would have to wait till it found a home in a volume before including in your review and then - it may not be "news" any more.

[JohnJ 4,613]

Bobby, just know that many, many more people understand when someone has done them a favor...informally speaking.     Kudos to your efforts.

[Boesse 1,751]

Thanks @JohnJ! And @Doctor Mud it was a totally fair comment to make - had it been a manuscript I had submitted for peer review. But it wasn't, and I don't take that sort of snarge!

[Plax 816]

I have a friend that even corrects and complains about early lit. As though the authors of that day should have known better! Thanks for enlightening us.