Rebutting Hill et al

In a previous comment thread, Methinks wrote:

PS: For Tom, maybe for another thread...Who will publish a response to Hill et al in ACE. Those namby-pamby ornithologist types better do it this time...last time they left up to a rag-tag gang of bird artists, untenured Ph D.'s, id experts, and Bird Observatory Directors (I mean that in the nicest possible way fellas).

I think these guys have done their service, because without their rebuttal, we'd still be knee-deep in double-knocky sounds and teary-eyed interns from Brinkley. But who is going to rebut Professor Hill, Harold Hill.

On the surface, the "response" process on the fledgling Avian Conservation and Ecology journal looks quick and easy--check out this link. An excerpt:

We welcome comments from readers that summarize data or experiences, or that review other papers or books that amplify the original article. Comments will be accepted only if factual, thoughtful, and substantive. If opinions are included, they must move the discussion forward. The Editor-in-Chief who oversaw the peer-review of this article will act as the moderator of all responses. If a response is accepted for publication, it will be linked to the original article under the heading "Responses to this Article".

A response may be of any length, and may include additional materials such as figures or tables. Short responses (under 250 words) will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief of the original article. Longer responses and those that include additional material will be subject to more rigorous screening. All responses that are accepted for publication will appear as separate articles, but will be cross-linked to the original article.

Also note this editorial. An excerpt (the bold font is mine):

By bringing this paper to the attention of avian ecologists and conservationists, ACE-ÉCO is participating in the scientific process of hypothesis generation and evaluation. As is the nature of our business, readers will decide for themselves. The online, open access format of the journal readily permits dialogue on this topic, and we invite readers to submit comments. For now, we are prepared to embrace the uncertainty presented by the evidence in Hill et al. Time, and rigorous testing, will be the ultimate judge.

I think ACE-ECO (on Hill et al) has an opportunity to seriously outperform Science (on Fitz et al). Both journals published papers detailing flimsy Ivory-bill evidence, but Science treated it as "proof" while ACE-ECO at least acknowledged it was "not proof".

In the handling of rebuttals/responses, I think ACE-ECO has the opportunity to run rings around Science. Note this disturbing text from this Nemesio/Jackson/Rodrigues paper (PDF):

In spite of submitting it twice, our reply was neither acknowledged nor published by the journal [Science], thus avoiding the presentation of our contradictory opinion and, we feel, violating a basic tenet of science.

I encourage all of you to submit responses to ACE-ECO (I may do this myself too).

If you do submit a response, please let us know how it goes. I wonder how the mainstream media will cover responses as they are published.