Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Errors or shortcomings in the BACC book?
The BACC book has now been on the market for 3 years, and the editorial deadline was already in late 2006. Are there any errors or shortcomings which should have been known at that time? "Error" here means false references, figure captions, wrong figure labels, years, numbers etc. "Shortcoming" here means the neglection of published results which should have been mentioned in the book but for whatever reason did not make it into the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I found one wrong reference: on page 84 it says Hyvärinen 2002, but on the reference list there is only Hyvärinen 2003 (and Hyvärinen et al. 1998, 2003 and 2005).
To continue: on page 96 it says Hela, 1948, 1950 but there is only Hela 1948 on the reference list (page 117). Same for Dailidien (which should be Dailidiene) et al, 2005, there is only Dailidiene 2004 and 2006 in the reference list (page 114).
"Error" woudl also be an incorrect assessment - for instance if relevant publications have been overseen, the balance of evidence has been reviewed in a biased manner ...
Marcus, when we eventually will be able to make the pdf public - can we correct the small errors found by our colleagues (listed above)? - Hans
I would define "error" in a technical sense here (false reference year or author, wrong figure captions, wrong figure labels, years, numbers etc.). The error type you are eluding to are content-related errors, i.e. "consented" knowledge which did not make it into the book, but also cited knowledge which was "consented" state of the art at the time of writing but in hindsight has shown to be wrong or incomplete. In any case both "error" types should be taken up here. There should be no discussion about the former, but on the latter ...
Post a Comment