Hi,
Concerning the posting by Philip Veerman about the Common Myna dated 10/8/12, I would like to respond to criticisms expressed by Philip in which he notes ‘A hugely embarrassing and deplorable failure by COG!’
The paper in question was produced from data provided through the COG Garden Bird Survey. COG had no input or responsibility on how the data were analysed or on the conclusions reached and nor they should. The job of COG is to ensure that data are collected in the way described on the data sheets and that the data are as free from errors as can be expected. The way that the data are analysed and the conclusions reached is entirely up to the authors.
Referees are selected by the publishing journal. COG was not asked to be a referee and so had no input into the final product. I see no reason why COG should be criticised in this way and am at a loss to understand COG’s ‘deplorable failure’ unless it is expected that COG provide a caveat that the ‘data must be used wisely’.
Chris
