Clarification from Chris Bennett on ‘the curse of Chris Bennett’

We can all be glad that Dr Bennett saves correspondence,
some nearly 30 years old. This is his comment (slightly abridged for brevity), on the subject of ‘the curse of Dr Chris Bennett, used in this blogpost some eleven times over 15 years.

Bennett’s conclusion (see below) reflects his current thinking. It has not changed.

I am elevating this comment to a blogpost in order to show readers how some academics  keep outsiders at arm’s length by patting them on the head, thanking them for their efforts and enthusiasm, all the while sending them on their way.
This is a skill intelligent people have.

Reply notes on Bennett’s long comment are interspersed.

“In your post, you refer to what you call “SC Bennett’s curse, ‘You will not be published and if your are published, you will not be cited.’”

The ‘curse’ is a paraphrase rather than a quote of the real passage and you misrepresent the real passage when you refer to it as a curse, so I would like to set the record straight. My intent in writing the real passage was to offer advice that I hoped would help you.”

That ‘hope’ comes through in the following paragraph.
Please note Bennett’s comments discuss the general bulk of the manuscript, but never get into specifics, whether congratulatory or critical. In other words, he could have said the same thing without having read the manuscript.

Also note, in the old days authors used to send their manuscripts to experts in the field seeking advice and editing, prior to submission. Perhaps they still do.

“Here is the last paragraph quoted in its entirety: “In conclusion, let me say that I applaud your desire to contribute to our knowledge of pterosaurs and the considerable effort that you have expended toward that end, but I am very disappointed that you have been unable to accept the advice that I have given you all along. Years ago, when you first sent me your big manuscript I told you it was too long and too big, to narrow your focus down to a single subject, to go over your wording again and again to tighten it, to get rid of superfluous illustrations; I said much the same thing on the review of the manuscript you submitted to Paleobiology; and now I will say it again about the present manuscript: it is too long and too big (25 pages of finished publication is way to [sic] much, aim for 10), narrow your focus down to a single subject, go over your wording again and again to tighten it (examine the wording of each sentence), test your ideas (you should try to find all the faults with your ideas before someone else does), check the logic of your ideas and statements (then check it again really carefully!!!), and get rid of superfluous illustrations. You see, in order for you to contribute to our knowledge of pterosaurs two things have to happen. First, you have to get your ideas published, and second, you have to publish them in a form such that they will not be completely ignored by other workers. It is not enough to get published if everybody ignores your paper as the work of a crackpot. I very much doubt that PIL are as useful and informative as you think, but I have sincerely given you my best advice for getting your ideas published and taken seriously. You simply do not seem to take any of my advice; perhaps you do not understand my advice, perhaps you choose to ignore it.

Which ideas and images were superfluous were not specified.
Which ideas and images were essential were also not specified.

Let’s repeat the conclusion in the above paragraph:
“It is not enough to get published if everybody ignores your paper as the work of a crackpot.”

Let’s remind ourselves that academics can write to outsiders this way = name-calling, because outsiders never referee academic manuscripts. Do they employ similar name-calling in their correspondence with colleagues potentially in charge of their own submitted manuscripts? Let’s hope not.

And here is the quote = ‘curse’ itself.
“Regardless, it [sic] my opinion that until you significantly change your writing, none of it will be published in refereed scientific journals, much less be taken seriously by pterosaur workers.”

I think ‘the curse,’ as remembered,was pretty faithful to the gist of Bennett’s comments.

As it turned out, the editor(s) of Ichnos found value in the submission and published the work right away without edits, and without cutting ‘superfluous’ images. It ran 30 pages in print, so was not ‘too big’ and ‘too long’.

The acceptance of the manuscript (citation below) was accompanied by  a short note expressing puzzlement at how vociferous and adamant the referees were imploring rejection. The editor had no bias regarding my status as an outsider.

Peters D 2000a. Description and Interpretation of Interphalangeal Lines in Tetrapods. Ichnos, 7: 11-41.

But wait, there’s more… nine years later
Hone, Sullivan and Bennett (2009) intended to disprove the universal hypothesis of parallel interphalangeal hinge lines, but avoided using all of the best examples (tetrapods with four and five digits). Even so they several times admitted to recovering hinge lines, even on three-toed taxa in which the digits were fully flexed and therefore not in their ‘useful’ positions.

Hone DWE, Sullivan C, Bennett SC. 2009. Interpreting the autopodia of tetrapods: interphalangeal lines hinge on too many assumptions. Hist Biol, iFirst article, 2009, 1–11, doi: 10.1080/08912960903154503.

The authors did NOT send me their manuscript prior to submission.

My reply was published in another peer-reviewed journal a year later.
Abstract: “Virtually parallel lines can be drawn through the interphalangeal joints and across the ungual tips of every tetrapod manus or pes, including wings and flippers. Their presence indicates that phalanges operate in sets sharing common hinges, whether for walking (extension) or climbing (flexion). A recent paper has attempted to dismantle both the observation and utility of parallel interphalangeal lines. Here, I rebut those spurious arguments and report additional evidence.”

Peters D 2010. In defence of parallel interphalangeal lines Historical Biology iFirst article, 2010, 1–6 DOI: 10.1080/08912961003663500

Let me repeat, ‘spurious arguments, did not employ tetrapods with four and five digits, and several times admitted to recovering hinge lines’.

Getting back to Dr Bennett’s long comment:
“The last sentence was not to state that none of your writings would be published and none would be taken seriously, but rather was to state that you needed to improve your writing.”

I appreciate that, Dr Bennett, but falsifiable specifics must be provided. Not black-washing. You never addressed the hypotheses, observations and interpretations.

“One might think that my opinion that you would not get published in refereed journals until significantly changing your writing was proven wrong by your 2000 prolacertiforms and interphalangeal lines papers, 2009 pteroid articulation paper, and 2011 pterosaur tracks paper, but in a letter dated March 4, 2001 commenting on another of your manuscripts, I wrote “your writing shows that you have made great strides in polish and organization since the first manuscript you sent me years ago”, so perhaps you did take some of my advice.”

Everyone goes through a ‘freshman’ phase, even if they do so outside of Academia, and I did/do so ‘out in the open’ every time I saw yet another taxon I have never seen before. I acknowledge all prior errors, recent and thirty years ago.

When was the last time you heard any paleontologist admit that.

“Note that the real passage did not suggest that if published you would not be cited, and indeed I have cited some of your papers in my publications; however, despite your four publications in refereed journals and occasional citations of those papers, I am afraid that neither you nor your contributions seem to be taken seriously by other pterosaur workers. Let me close by noting that this message, like my June 6, 1997 and March 4, 2001 letters to you, is sent with my best wishes. — SC Bennett”

Again, I applaud and appreciate Dr Bennett’s professional tone and the hour or so it took for his attempt here to ‘set the record straight’.

All commenters to this blogpost should take a lesson from Dr Bennett on his excellent ‘bedside manner.’

Let me clarify, the following link will take you to ten peer-reviewed publications, not four, online here. Two are peer-reviewed abstracts.

Readers should not overlook Dr Bennett’s summary quote,
“I am afraid that neither you nor your contributions seem to be taken seriously by other pterosaur workers.“

The scientific method requires only observation, description, testing and reporting. It allows for mistakes and for mistakes to be reported by others.

It is up to other pterosaur workers whether or not any papers are ‘taken seriously’ or not. If workers want to keep their blinders on, if they want to keep making the same mistakes over and over again, if they lack the curiosity to see what might happen if a taxon is added – or if they want to reject a manuscript because it was ‘too long’ or I did not ‘look at the specimen long enough’ or ‘examine the specimens twice’, then I hope readers will see how polite gate-keeping can be.

Bennett’s long comment is a good lesson for the younger generation.
Note: sometimes it’s not what they say, but what they don’t say and should say.

Academics don’t want to give equal weight to outside observations, some of which alert readers to oversights and mistakes made by academics – and outsiders do this without the status earned from a standard educational track. No wonder name-calling is often the first bullet in their revolver. Status and resentment are powerful drivers, going back to our primate ancestors. It can’t be helped and in that light is fully understandable. It has always been this way and will always be this way. The list of scientists who were called ‘foolish’ and later proven correct is a long one.

I am 71 years old. If I don’t leave a legacy of novel hypotheses, observations and interpretations, at least I hope to impart on some of you the value of critical thinking.

Source: https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2026/04/07/clarification-from-chris-bennett-on-the-curse-of-chris-bennett/