User:MargaretRDonald/C.V.Rao Response

Leading researcher
One reviewer in 1973 referred to him as the leading researcher in the field of Proteaceae.

All references by him
It seems odd that a man whose every article has been reviewed by his peers, whose work attests to his life and value, should have someone lightly say "All the sources are his". We surely would not condemn an author whose multiple works are listed and published by well-known publishers, and say "there are no secondary references". A puff-piece in a newspaper in which the interviewee is the source of all the reported remarks apparently has more value than 100 (self-authored, but peer-reviewed) papers.

This man worked before the advent of the internet. Most of his articles are difficult to track down. He worked in India, a country, which seriously underresourced, and one whose scientists are seriously underrepresented on wikipedia. Chelsea Clinton who has done little more than be the daughter of a US ex-president, yet is the subject of well-researched and uncontested article on Wikipedia

He did not name, collect or describe new plants (if he had, there would be no problem in accepting this article): most of his work was on anatomy and embryology of already named plants.

Bias
This man worked before the advent of the internet. Most of his articles are difficult to track down. He worked in India, a country, which seriously underresourced, and one whose scientists are seriously underrepresented on wikipedia. Chelsea Clinton who has done little more than be the daughter of a US ex-president, yet is the subject of well-researched and uncontested article on Wikipedia.

One can find the Ph.D. thesis in its entirety of a someone (Donald Davis Francois) graduating in 1961 from Cornell University, yet someone (Venkata Rao) awarded a Ph.D from the University of Tasmania in 1957 will not be found, nor can the record or the thesis be found for Kerrie Mengersen 1988 at the University of New England.