Jacobson Finds Four Adults to Slam Clack
I am not making this up
__ Dave Berry, from just about every other column he has ever written
Anyone who reads my stuff probably knows about Mark Jacobson’s lawsuit against Cristopher Clack and is probably even tired of it, but I just can’t help myself. Mark Jacobson has just tweeted out links to four pdf declarations from four “experts” critiquing the PNAS critique of his award winning PNAS paper.
They are all tidy, legalistic looking, eleven to seventeen point, … whatever they are. The first numbered point of every one of them reads as follows:
1. My name is <name of member of clique of RE experts and pal reviewers>. I am over the age of 18 and am competent to make the following declaration.
I am seriously wondering if Jacobson is cracking up or just playing an elaborate joke on all of us. Well, they all end with:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the <“foregoing” or “following”> is true and correct<“.” or “, …”>
I am always suspicious when someone, like Dr Robert Hogarth, goes to the trouble of stroking their ego by boasting how many times their publications have been cited in the scientific literature. Don’t they know that papers that are most often cited are those that are wrong or contain a significant error within them that other authors rejoice in referencing? The second most cited papers are reviews, which although time consuming and extremely useful, commonly contain very little new scientific content.
I have written both types of paper in my time.
For my paper I received one reprint request, from some guy in India. I mailed all the copies I had to him and would have enclosed a gift. But in my experience the words “jewelry” and “chocolate” on a customs form are guarantees of non delivery