Hi, I am new to this forum. I have been reading for some time. This is my first post. It is more about the sociology of science.

Has anyone seen the exchange in Science magazine between Schall et al and Miller and Buschman? See Technical Comments in Science 5 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5847.

Schall's comment on Buschman and Miller's paper is the worst I have seen. Miller and Buschman's response makes clear that Schall got everything wrong. He misunderstood their results and analysis and even misreports results from the prior literature. It seems like Schall read their paper once through quickly and then tossed off his letter in a fit of anger without thinking much about what Buschman and Miller were actually saying.

It seems to me that Schall is threatened by the new techniques that Buschman and Miller are using. This may be a classic example of the old-fashioned, backward-looking scientist being scared by new approaches.

My question is: Why did Science even bother publishing Schall et al's comment. It is a joke. Is there no quality control on Science Technical Comments? Can anyone write any old inaccurate comment and get it published in Science?

See

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full...ourcetype=HWCIT