Talk:WikiJournal of Science/The Himalayan fossil hoax
Add topic
WikiJournal of Science
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
Previous
Volume 1(1)
Volume 1(2)
Volume 2(1)
Volume 3(1)
Volume 4(1)
Volume 5(1)
Volume 6(1)
This article has been through public peer review.
It was adapted from the Wikipedia page Himalayan_fossil_hoax and contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a CC BY-SA license. Post-publication review comments or direct edits can be left at the version as it appears on Wikipedia.
First submitted:
Accepted:
Article text
PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/WJS/2024.008
QID: Q130230166
XML: Download
Share article
Email
| 
Facebook
| 
Twitter
| 
LinkedIn
| 
Mendeley
| 
ResearchGate
Suggested citation format:
Kholhring Lalchhandama (21 September 2024). "The Himalayan fossil hoax". WikiJournal of Science 7 (1): 8. doi:10.15347/WJS/2024.008. Wikidata Q130230166. ISSN 2470-6345. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/1/13/The_Himalayan_fossil_hoax.pdf.
Citation metrics
AltMetrics
Page views on Wikipedia
Wikipedia: This work is adapted from the Wikipedia article Himalayan fossil hoax (CC BY-SA). Content has also subsequently been used to update that same Wikipedia article Himalayan fossil hoax.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Alex O. Holcombe 
contact
C P Rajendran
Om Bhargava
Andrew Simpson
Article information
First peer reviewer
Review by CP Rajendran 
, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The author is reusing what has already been published in Wikipedia.
The article is prepared most objectively without bias and reflects the true chain of events, sufficiently supported by appropriate references and previously published literature. The author may want to refer to an obituary on John Talent, written by Om Bhargava in the Journal of Geological Society of India, this year.
I recommend the article for publication in Wikijournal.
I am happy to sign the review.
Thank you for the valuable comment. I wrote the Wikipedia article to be submitted here for peer reviewing. The obituary is noted. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Second peer reviewer
Review by Om N. Bhargava , Geology Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
1. Aberystwyth University fossil slide was that of a coral (Marked in red in Word file),
2. Not "Subhay Kumar Prasad", the Chairman was Dr A. K. Prasad ,
3. Not "The Geological Society of India", but the Geological Survey of India (I was one of the members) and Panjab University under the leadership of Dr A.S. Paintal, FRS.
4. Arun Deep Ahluwalia "was reprimanded and punished by the Panjab University", he was not punished, as far as I remember he was not even admonished in writing.
There is some scope to improve the language. The article "THE" has been used economically, Himalaya be prefixed with THE.
Critical points are welcome and modified accordingly:
1. Coral specified.
2. Name corrected to A.K.
3. GSI name corrected; but Panjab University is not mentioned in sources as such, instead is Society for Scientific Values. It makes more sense with Paintal as the founder president of the society.
4. Statement is modified to match the cited source for Ahluwalia.
Language is also revised throughout the text. Article "the" is not used in some quoted sources. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Review by Om N. Bhargava , Geology Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Yesterday I went to Panjab university for clarification. V. J. Gupta was made to teach Environmental Geology and not Engineering Geology.
Detective work is appreciated and the subject is accordingly changed, but will retain "ground water" as explicitly mentioned by the source. In fact, it was Talent who said "engineering". Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Third peer reviewer
reviewer-annotated pdf
Review by Andrew Simpson , Chau Chak Wing Museum, The University of Sydney
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Detailed line comments were provided as a PDF and uploaded by the editor here: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/File:WikiJournal_Preprints_The_Himalayan_fossil_hoax_-_Wikiversity.pdf
Review rubric answers:
_Accuracy_
· Is anything incorrectly stated? I can not find any statements of fact that are incorrect apart from a couple of minor errors regarding animal categories as indicated on detailed review.
· Do the references support the statements being made? Yes, in general, the references are appropriately utilised in the article
· Are any important recent papers missed? In general, the sources used for writing this piece are extensive, there are some in the general literature of which I was unaware. I would recommend the obituary I wrote for the Pander Society in 2024, it only mentions the Gupta scandal in a couple of paragraphs, but there is other contextual information about John Talent’s academic career that could be useful.
· Are any references out of date or obsolete? References when writing about science history rarely become obsolete.
_Balance_
· Does it reflect current thinking in the field? I think the article is well-balanced in general, the section on Consequences was particularly useful for understanding what happened to Gupta and how he managed to still retain his university pension.
· Is anything important missing (or cherry-picked)? I don’t believe anything important is missing or cherrypicked. Perhaps
· Are viewpoints given due weight given the existing literature? Yes, I think all viewpoints are well covered.
· Are any conclusions/perspectives/outlook/opinions/original research clearly indicated? Yes, they are indicated, it is good to see documentation of the earlier concerns about Gupta’s work by Indian scientists, this is often overlooked in the story.
_Accessibility_
· Is the language clear and unambiguous? In most cases yes, a very few minor expressions in the text that could be construed as ambiguous, these are indicated on detailed comments.
· Are any diagrams misleading or incomplete? Not applicable
· Is the work written such that a knowledgeable generalist can understand it? Yes.
· Is the abstract/lead understandable to a general audience? Yes, it is an accessible document.
· Does the lay summary (if included) capture the key points of the work while being understandable to a reader with only secondary-school background? N/A
A very helpful and thorough analysis, the article will be in much better form. A tip on Talent's background is useful, and is added in the text. Waterhouse’s and Webster’s authorships are also resolved. The other specific comments are also taken care of. However:
1. The comment “Eurydesma is a brachiopod not a mollusc” is perhaps a scientific mistake. On the contrary, Eurydesma (see “Background”) is not a brachiopod. It is a bivalve, a mollusk (as far as standard taxonomy is to be followed, see https://www.gbif.org/species/7736958); hence it is safe to say they are mollusks.
2. Statements in the summary (or lead as it is known in Wikis) do not require citations, as long as the same statement is given and cited in the main text; e.g., concerning UGC cancellation of funding, see the section “Consequences”, 3rd sentence.
3. Footnote for quoted sources is also not required in Wikis, the full citation (including page numbers) is sufficient.
4.The expression “fictitious and based on spurious fossils” is genuine as far as GSI report is concerned, and is not mine, so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the language.
Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The author appears to have addressed all three reviewers' comments satisfactorily. I went through and suggested some line edits, which were agreed by the author. Next step is to bring this to the entire editorial board as a candidate for publication. Aoholcombe (discuss • contribs) 08:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)