<<I am disappointed to see you implying that Francis would allow any
publisher compromise his professional status, let alone suggesting he
would "promote" or "criticise" any technology without having a strong
scientifically based argument for such. Any scientist of Francis's
standing would no doubt see your comment as quite a professional slur.
I would have thought you of all people would have not let your personal
biases allow you to make such criticisms without having even read the
Equally, I think you will find that the book has been peer reviewed (not
that too many people could really peer-review Francis's work).
Just to place it on the record I have both read a pre-published copy of
the book and contributed a very small part to it.>>
These 'implications' are evidently your construction and not mine. I've
re-read my posting and it's merely a number of facts that I'd gleaned when I
looked into finding out more about the book in response to a question posed
to the forum. I'm not sure which part of my posting could reasonably be
labelled as 'personal bias'. For example, Francis' opinion on the
resistograph is well known in the UK.
Thanks for clarifying the book has been peer reviewed, which is an important
Would you happen to know how the peer review was undertaken and who did it?
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre