Reviewer 1 copy

Below  I  have  pasted  verbatim  one  of  the  two  reviews  we  received  for  this  manuscript.   (The  other  was  brief  and  technical.)  It  was  so  surprising,  see  the  highlighted  text,  I   decided  to  share  it.  Imagine  how  these  issues  must  have  been  troubling  the  reviewer!     Incidentally,  a  couple  of  months  after  receiving  this  I  was  at  an  Int  Congr  Entomol  2016   mixer  when  the  person  next  to  me  looked  at  my  name  tag  and  exclaimed  something  like   “You're  the  guy  that  had  that  crazy  review!”  He  turned  out  to  be  the  J  Med  Entomol   editor.     My  collaborators  and  I  have  grown  accustomed  to  this  kind  of  conduct,  but  I’m  sorry   one  of  my  students  (Smith)  was  exposed  to  it.     JDW.  April  17,  2017       Reviewer:  1     Comments  to  the  Author   This  manuscript  details  the  identification  of  sex-­‐specific  exons  of  the  transformer  gene   in  a  medically  and  forensically  important  blow  fly.     Some  version  of  this  project  warrants  publication,  but  there  are  several  things  that  seem   worth  re-­‐tuning  in  the  document.     First,  the  authors  may  want  to  change  the  balance  of  discussion  points  between  the   introduction  and  the  discussion.    In  the  introduction  the  authors  highlight  the  forensic   importance  of  their  discovery,  but  neglect  to  provide  evidence  (theirs  or  that  of  others)   to  establish  that  development  of  this  particular  species  is  sexually  dimorphic  (and  the   degree  to  which  is  is  dimorphic,  and  thus  impacts  traits  that  are  important  to   forensics).    Picard's  sexual  dimorphism  paper  does  note  that  molecular  predictions  of  fly   age  would  benefit  from  identification  of  sex,  but  this  is  not  part  of  the  introduction   (though  it  is  in  the  discussion).    There  is  at  least  a  transcriptome  for  this  fly  species.    This   fly  has  an  obvious  sexual  dimorphism  that  is  relevant  to  its  biology  and  potentially   relevant  to  its  control.    Also  sex  determination  genes  are  necessary  for  insect  control   through  sterile  insect  technique.    Again,  this  point  is  in  the  discussion,  but  not  the   introduction.    Several  of  these  points  seem  better  justifications  for  the  work  than  what   is  in  the  introduction.     It  may  help  to  have  a  general  introduction:  sexual  dimorphism  and  a  means  of   evaluating  it  are  important  to  numerous  applications  with  this  fly.    Then  the  conclusion   can  touch  on  all  subjects  including  forensics.    As  written,  it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  the   ability  to  identify  sexes  of  this  particular  species  with  something  of  forensic   consequence.     Second,  the  evaluation  of  the  locus  could  be  more  detailed.    In  particular,  the  similarity    

1  

to  Lucilia  warrants  further  evaluation  and  discussion.    Are  the  male  exons  also  more   similar  to  Lucilia  sequences?    Do  the  authors  expect  that,  had  they  sequenced  the  entire   transcript  with  RACE  experiments  that  this  pattern  would  hold?    How  about  if  they  had   compared  the  sequences  of  entire  genes  including  introns?    Any  possibility  of   misidentification  or  contamination?    Any  way  to  rule  it  out?     Third,  several  years  ago  Wells  went  on  a  series  of  ever-­‐more  belligerent  attacks  on   colleagues  that  don't  write  minimum  PMI  in  the  literature,  when  they  talk  about  what   development  models  can  provide  in  a  death  investigation.    This  culminated  in  a  series  of   letters  to  the  editor  of  this  journal.    I  found  his  behavior  to  be  scientifically   unprofessional  and  feel  that  he  has  not  supported  his  attempt  to  justify  that  minimum   PMI  is  the  most  responsible  way  to  talk  about  what  insect  data  provides  in  an   investigation.     1.  In  his  attack  on  his  colleagues  and  their  use  of  language  he,  on  several  occasions,   chose  to  use  quotes  from  the  documents  that  look  much  worse  alone  than  in  the   context  of  the  whole  document.    The  most  egregious  of  these  is  when  he  neglected  to   cite  a  highly  qualified  statement  about  what  insect  evidence  provides  in  favor  of  a   subsequent  unqualified  statement.    That  is  an  unscientific  attack  more  befitting  of  a   lawyer.    No  colleague  should  be  expected  to  qualify  every  use  of  a  term  every  time  it  is   used  in  a  document.    If  Wells  had  been  responsible,  he  would  have  quoted  the  qualified   term.    His  choice  to  do  not  do  so  puts  his  motives  in  question  for  me.     2.    Wells  received  several  replies,  all  of  which  he  chose  to  glibly  ignore  in  favor  of  a  reply   that  included  a  non-­‐scientific  straw  man  argument  that  put  words  in  the  mouths  of  his   colleagues  (and  ironically  equally  applied  to  the  terminology  he  feels  should  be  used).  In   that  reply  he  claimed  that  he  was  not  talking  about  semantics,  assumptions,  pathology   or  research  agendas.    In  doing  so,  he  chose  to  ignore  several  relevant  points  that  his   colleagues  made  in  their  respectful  replies  to  him.     Regarding  semantics:  Wells  failed  to  address  the  fact  that  the  Tomberlin  framework   (and  its  terminology)  can  be  applied  at  different  scales  and  that  at  the  level  of  an   individual  specimen,  his  critique  disappears...making  his  argument  semantic  in   nature.    He  did  not  counter  the  argument  in  defense  of  postocolonisation  interval,  but   instead  attacked  the  use  of  period  of  insect  activity  and  now  behaves  as  if  he  has   justified  the  use  of  minimum  PMI  over  postcolonisation  interval.  His  reply  only  defended   on  of  four  points  he  originally  made.     Regarding  assumptions:  Wells  is  disingenuous  -­‐  in  an  EAFE  abstract  on  the  very  subject   of  what  development  data  provides  in  an  investigation  Wells  reported  that  minimum   PMI  is  predicted  saying,  "The  age  of  a  carrion  insect  associated  with  a  corpse,  given   certain  circumstances,  corresponds  to  a  minimum  PMI".    It  is  worth  noting  that  he  felt   the  need  to  underline  the  phrase  "given  certain  circumstances"  in  his  abstract.    So,  he   has  already  admitted  that  his  complaint  with  colleagues  (and  his  attempt  to  control    

2  

language  in  the  field  through  disrespectful  attacks  on  colleagues  that  will  not  get  in  line   with  his  opinion)  exactly  depends  on  assumptions.    Further,  Wells  has  failed  to   convincingly  defend  the  charge  that  his  complaint  (at  the  scale  he  chooses  to  assume)   can  be  addressed  in  casework  by  changing  the  assumed  scale  or  by  simply  listing  a  single   assumption  regarding  whether  the  oldest  specimen  was  collected.    Wells  has  also  never   convincingly  explained  why  talking  about  what  insect  evidence  provides  as  a  minimum   PMI  is  more  responsible  than  using  a  term  like  postcolonisation  interval  or  time  of   colonisation,  given  that  the  violation  of  some  assumptions  would  mean  insect  evidence   is  providing  a  MAXIMUM  PMI  (example:  myiasis).    This  could  be  very  misleading  to  an   investigator,  juror,  lawyer,  or  judge  -­‐  yet  Wells  ignores  this  point.     Regarding  pathology:  PMI  is  a  law  enforcement  term  related  to  a  human  body.    Wells   deals  with  insects.    Wells  has  never  convincingly  explained  why  it  is  responsible  to  use   PMI  to  describe  insect  evidence  over  insect  focused  terms,  when  the  relation  between   the  evidence  and  PMI  hinges  on  numerous  assumptions,  many  of  which  have  been   empirically  demonstrated  to  be  violated  in  casework.    A  colleague  in  another  forensic   field  recently  reported  that  even  forensic  anthropologists  (who  work  with   human    remains)  are  pulling  away  from  the  use  of  PMI  due  to  the  number  of   assumptions  that  must  be  satisfied.    If  they  are  doing  so  when  they  work  with  human   remains,  why  should  Wells  not  do  so  with  insect  evidence?     Well  should  also  be  aware  that  some  in  the  field  feel  that  the  use  of  the  term  PMI  with   entomology  represents  a  financial  conflict  of  interest  as  it  is  believed  by  some  that   police  will  not  use  entomological  evidence  if  it  cannot  give  them  a  PMI.    Therefore,  any   forensic  entomologist  that  wants  to  get  paid  for  their  services  could  be  viewed  as   attempting  to  help  their  business  or  supporting  their  lab  by  using  PMI  terminology.     Regarding  research  agendas:    Again,  Wells  is  disingenuous.    His  EAFE  abstract  noted   above  was  entitled:  "Useless  or  Illogical  Ideas  in  the  Forensic  Entomology   Literature".    This  title  and  his  subsequent  abstract  clearly  shows  the  distain  for  certain   terminology  and  research  agendas  in  the  field.    He  has  reinforced  this  attitude  time  and   again  in  personal  conversations  with  colleagues,  various  talks  at  conferences,  and  a   letter  to  the  membership  of  NAFEA.    Yet,  in  his  reply  to  colleagues  Wells  stated:  "I  didn't   find  fault  with  any  forensic  entomology  concept,  including  postcolonization  interval   (PCI)  or  period  of  insect  activity  (PIA).  Statements  that  may  have  sounded  critical  of  PCI   and  PIA  were  meant  to  illustrate  how  they  were  misused  rather  than  a  critique  of  how   they  were  originally  defined".    Wells  cannot  square  the  comment  in  his  reply  to  his   colleagues  with  his  language  in  other  venues.    He  is  exactly  attacking  his  colleagues   (specifically  their  research  agenda)  and  appears  to  want  to  have  his  cake  and  eat  it  too   when  it  comes  to  talking  about  these  matters  in  the  field.     Unlike  Wells,  I  understand  that  my  colleagues  operate  in  good  faith  and  are  making  an   attempt  to  be  responsible  when  using  terminology,  even  terminology  that  I  cannot   agree  with.    Subsequently,  I  do  not  feel  the  need  to  control  what  terms  they  use  by    

3  

bullying  my  colleagues  when  they  do  not  give  me  my  way.    However,  I  do  expect  my   colleagues  to  be  able  to  defend  their  positions.    After  Wells  shockingly  unprofessional   and  unscientific  display,  it  seems  that  he  should  explain  himself  on  this  topic  more   before  he  is  allowed  to  use  this  term  without  question.    There  are  several  solutions  to   this  problem.    First,  minimum  PMI  is  really  very  peripherally  relevant  to  the  topic  of  the   paper,  and  he  could  easily  remove  the  term  without  impacting  the  quality  of  the   manuscript.    Alternatively,  he  can  choose  to  keep  it  in,  but  in  that  instance  I  think  that   he  needs  to  embrace  the  underlined  "given  certain  circumstances"  comment  he  felt  was   so  necessary  in  his  EAFE  abstract.    Wells  does  not  get  to  talk  about  assumptions  to   defend  minimum  PMI,  but  then  reject  assumptions  when  his  colleagues  point  to  them  in   defense  of  terminology  that  they  prefer...especially  when  violations  of  assumptions  can   mean  that  what  Wells  tells  a  courtroom  that  he  calculated  is  actually  a  maximum  PMI   instead  of  a  minimum.     Minor  points:     Some  citations  are  in  brackets     The  gel  images  are  a  bit  blurry.    It  would  help  to  provide  higher  resolution  images  of   these  or  similar  gels.  

 

4