“Save the Cohesion-Tension Theory!”
Letter to the Editor-in-chief of the New Phytologist Journal
In the June 2004 issue of the New Phytologist, a paper was published by Ulrich Zimmermann and co-worker in the prestigious Tansley Review series under the title “Water ascent in tall trees: does evolution of land plants rely on a highly metastable state?”. In the paper, Ulrich Zimmermann develops at length his own views on the mechanisms of long distance water transport in plants, and claims that the “arguments of the proponents of the Cohesion Theory are completely misleading”. This paper is an insult to the outstanding work of hundred of prestigious plant physiologists since the pioneering studies of
It must be pointed that this review is a real menace for future scientists. Tansley reviews are usually outstanding and, hence, highly praised by students and young scientists. The fact that that are now freely accessible online will further contribute to their success. Therefore it is critical to inform as soon as possible the readers of the New Phytologist that:
1- The cohesion-tension theory is the only valid and consistent theory for long distance water transport in plant.
2- There is an extremely large consensus about the CT-theory among the current scientific community.
3- The ideas developed by U Zimmermann are highly controversial and shared only by himself and very few persons on earth.
4- The editorial board of New Phytologist does not endorse the views presented in this review.
Tansley Review being commissioned by the editors of the New Phytologist, I judge that it the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief of this journal to inform himself the readers of my protest. If the Editor-in-Chief does not fulfil my above requirements, I declare that I will:
1- Never cite Zimmermann’s Tansley Review in any of my forthcoming article.
2- Never submit a paper related to long distance water transport to New Phytologist in the future.
3- Never review a paper related to long distance water transport for New Phytologist in the future.
Proponent of the Cohesion-Tension Theory.
Maklumlah saya baru berkira2 nak jadi scientist yang sebenar...hmmm, so baru nak amik pot menda2 nih :p
Dan ini pula komen ke pihak journal yang sok bagus huhu
Dear Prof Woodward:
It seem to me that you have gotten yourself and New Phytologist into a
lot of hot water! I have been ready the rather large number of protest
letters written to you. I cannot understand how New Phytologist could
publish a review paper without proper peer review. You clearly dropped the
ball in this case. As I recall when I published a Tansley Review some years
ago, it was very adequately reviewed by my peers. Given that everyone in
the field has sent a letter of protest to you I can only conclude that you
went out of your way to find totally unqualified reviewers.
You may recall that New Phytologist had the misfortune of publishing a
paper by Zimmermann's group that was conceptually flawed and that I had to
publish a reply: Tyree, M.T. Capillarity and sap ascent in a resurrection
plant: does theory fit the facts? New Phytologist 150: 9-11 (2001). You
appear not to have learned from this mistake and have published yet another
paper by Zimmermann that is also conceptually flawed. There is nothing new
in the Tansley Review that has not already been published and responded to
in detail by us all.
May I suggest that it is time for New Phytologist to review their
editorial and peer review policies?
Prof. Melvin T. Tyree
USDA Forest Service