Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

Description

Sectional Committee: Zoology

He does not offer any opinion as to publishing the morphological part in Philosophical Transactions but thinks that the physiological part should be separated from it and be issued as a separate communication in the Proceedings. The title of the paper does not express the nature of the content as a large part deals with purely morphological problems and he does not feel competent to offer any report on this part. With regard to the part devoted to physiology, if it were presented as a separate paper, it is not of a character to be recommended for Philosophical Transactions. There are a good many facts recorded and tabulated but the experimental work is too imperfect to justify some of the conclusions which the author draws. There is a tendency to indulge in vague theorizing, entirely unsupported by observed facts. The authors themselves admit as much in one or two places. The tendency of the author to introduce strange analogies and 'high flown language' is to be deprecated in a paper dealing with purely scientific observations. It is especially desirable that it be clearly stated with regard to each recorded fact whether there is a confirmation of previous work with a definite reference to such work. The references to literature are too vague throughout, or are omitted. The illustrations are 'unphysiological'.

[Published in Philosophical Transactions B, 1902].

Endorsed on verso as received 11 August 1902.

Reference number
RR/15/359
Earliest possible date
August 1902
Physical description
Standardised form (type A)
Page extent
4 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer

View page for Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer

Use this record

Citation

Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer, Referee's report by Professor Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer, on a paper 'The colour-physiology of higher crustaceae' by Frederick Keeble and Frederick William Gamble, August 1902, RR/15/359, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_15_359/referees-report-by-professor-edward-albert-sharpey-schafer-on-a-paper-the-colour-physiology-of-higher-crustaceae-by-frederick-keeble-and-frederick-william-gamble, accessed on 13 April 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_15_359/referees-report-by-professor-edward-albert-sharpey-schafer-on-a-paper-the-colour-physiology-of-higher-crustaceae-by-frederick-keeble-and-frederick-william-gamble" title="Referee's report by Professor Edward Albert Sharpey-Schafer, on a paper 'The colour-physiology of higher crustaceae' by Frederick Keeble and Frederick William Gamble" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Related Publications

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1949

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection