Fair call Chris: I do understand there's a difference between peer-reviewed and
popular literature, and why it's important. But I think my point's being missed
as much as Stephen's.
I didn't know whether Wingspan was peer-reviewed - some glossy magazines are,
but I would have guessed it wasn't, as clearly it isn't resourced as a Nature
or New Scientist. But I think this is where some of the conflicting views are
arising in this discussion, from the scientific fraternity who rightly wish to
maintain standards of verification and validity of data, and the many
enthusiastic amatuers who wish there was an outlet for their interesting
sightings, & to read those of others. Some of those people have made comment in
this thread, and while I may not agree with all of the sentiments, sometimes
it's important to understand where they are coming from.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to get to grips with a dry,
peer-reviewed research journal, but I do value having an outlet where I can
access well-researched, well-written and accessible information about a subject
(bird conservation) that is important to me. That's what I value Wingspan for.
It's where I access the dry, serious stuff that I am glad there are people like
Stephen out there doing...