Sven

That it has to be marked as "advertisement" is news to me.

Shouldn't affect it at all. The review process is managed by an editor of the journal, but all printing stuff, including page charges, by production editors. At least this is the case with AIP (american institute of physics) journals.

Roland98

That just means that the author paid to publish it, as is the case with most journals. Authors pay page charges, extra money for color pictures, etc. This is standard.

jfryejr

I knew that most authors pay to publish (esp. color prints!), but I had never seen any marked as "Advertisement".

Just did a google search and it seems this type of acknowledgement is somewhat common.

Dr.Xu

I wonder if exon shuffling is not a Darwinian process, or if they are equally skeptical of it...

budgie

Darn it, I can't seem to get the full article either thru entrez or proteinscience.org. Could someone kindly send it to me or provide a different link? Much appreciated.

Besides the arguement from personal incredulity, Behe also subtly brings up the idea that the only good mutation is a bad mutation.

Having reviewed a couple (hundred) papers in my time, I would have rejected this one immediately based solely on the abstract. There's no support (data, modeling, or otherwise) for the conclusions they arrived at. Just my 2 pence.

-jim

RBH

As far as I can tell, it hasn't been published online yet. Even the DI doesn't have the full text online, just the abstract. People at places with institutional subscriptions to Protein Science can get it.

RBH

jfryejr

Any of the mods know the rules on disseminating articles published in journals in electronic format? I have the article, but don't want to be sued for giving it away...

RBH

Hang on for a bit, please. Protein Science makes full text available only to subscribers. I'm initiating a MCR thread to address this question.

RBH
E/C Moderator

RBH

Since the journal holds the copyright to the paper, it has the right to control distribution of it. "Fair use" is permitted, but promiscuous distribution is not. For example, a paying subscriber is permitted to download a copy for his/her own use, but a subscribing professor could not download a copy and reproduce it for his/her class. There are more twists and turns, but that's the gist of the law. See here for one university's take on it.

As far as this board is concerned, II does not encourage or condone violations of copyright law. We edit numerous postings that quote too much copyrighted material from outside sites. In addition, I stronly suspect that we would edit out a link to an unauthorized distribution site. II is not a "common carrier," AFAIK, and if such a link were posted in this Forum I'd edit it out just to protect the Board and the Forum Mods.

If there's any change or further clarification of policy from higher II authority, I'll let you know.

RBH
E/C Moderator

jfryejr

Thanks for the info. I didn't think a subscription based service would want its material distributed too freely, but I'm also a little undereducated on what is allowed as far as journals are concerned.

As far as the OP: here's a link to a Nature news blurb titled:Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design. And it's not referring to Behe's...

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0409...l/431114a.html

A brief quote:You'll have to register if you don't have a subscription, but I think their premium content is free for a while.