In article <199206260442.AA22330 at Menudo.UH.EDU> Davison at UH.EDU (Dan Davison) writes:
>>It is a piece of junk. (stronger word deleted). It contains *no*
>information that allows their work to be reproduced or checked in any
>way. An example of something, I'm not sure what, but it is NOT a good
>paper. It may be good science but you can't tell from what they wrote.
We are sorry to have upset Dan so badly. Perhaps Dan will become more relaxed
if he realizes: (a) that Science publishes papers that reports results of
general interest to a wide range of scientists, not papers for specialists;
(b) that the details of the methods needed to reproduce our results are
available to Dan should he contact us, or should he read our full papers;
(c) that the caption to Figure 2 already addresses for the careful reader
Dan's most trenchant objections. Regardless of what the prior literature
says, the data show that a linear gap penalty is not appropriate. We
recommend the non-linear gap penalty model; the model in the appendix is
provided only for those who do not wish to follow this recommendation.
Benner at ezrz1.vmsmail.ethz.ch