Editing Patrick Matthew (section)

===Modern claims for Matthew's priority===
Although Darwin insisted he had been unaware of Matthew's work, some modern commentators have held that he and Wallace were likely to have known of it, or could have been influenced indirectly by other naturalists who read and cited Matthew's book.
* [[Ronald W. Clark]], in his 1984 biography of Darwin, commented that ''Only the transparent honesty of Darwin's character... makes it possible to believe that by the 1850s he had no recollection of Matthew's work''.<ref>Clark, Ronald W. 1984. ''The survival of Charles Darwin''. p130-131 {{ISBN|0-380-69991-5}}</ref> This [[begs the question]], for it assumes he did read Matthew's book. Clark continues by suggesting: ''If Darwin had any previous knowledge of ''Arboriculture'', it had slipped down into the unconscious''.<ref>Clark, ''Survival of Charles Darwin'', p131</ref><ref>If Darwin had read the book, it might have been an example of [[cryptomnesia]].</ref>
* In 2014, [[Nottingham Trent University]] criminologist [[Mike Sutton (criminologist)|Mike Sutton]] published in a non-[[peer review|peer-reviewed]] (i.e. not reviewed by experts in the field)<ref name="COPE">[https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf ''e.g.'', Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Council Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, September 2017.] In order to assign appropriate reviewers, editors must match reviewers with the scope of the content in a manuscript to get the best reviews possible. Potential reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. It is important to recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct (e.g. see COPE Case 12-12: Compromised peer review in published papers). When approached to review, agree to review only if you have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in your assessment. It is better to identify clearly any gaps in your expertise when asked to review.</ref> proceedings a research paper that he presented to a [[British Society of Criminology]] conference proposing that both Darwin and Wallace had "more likely than not committed the world's greatest science fraud by apparently plagiarising the entire theory of natural selection from a book written by Patrick Matthew and then claiming to have no prior knowledge of it."<ref name="Sutton (2014a)">Sutton MR (2014) The hi-tech detection of Darwin's and Wallace's possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery. ''Papers from the British Criminology Conference'', Vol. 14: 49-64 http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf, but [[Patrick Matthew#cite note-Dagg2018-37|see Dagg (2018)]]</ref> On 28 May 2014 ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' science correspondent reported Sutton's views, and also the opinion of Darwin biographer [[James Moore (biographer)|James Moore]] that this was a non-issue (''below'').<ref name="telegraph.co.uk">[https://web.archive.org/web/20140528224139/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10859281/Did-Charles-Darwin-borrow-the-theory-of-natural-selection.html ''Did Charles Darwin 'borrow' the theory of natural selection?''] The Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2014, not according to [[Patrick Matthew#cite note-Dagg2018-37|Dagg (2018)]]</ref> Sutton published a 2014 non-peer reviewed [[e-book]] ''Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret''<ref name="Sutton 2014b">Sutton, MR (2014) ''Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret''. Thinker Media, Inc. (when questioned about the validity of the ebook, the editor dismissed intervention on the grounds that, "''Dr Sutton's book was one of our best sellers''". They confirmed that their publications were not peer reviewed, "''We are a publishing platform, not a publisher, operating under the US Law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which gives us tremendous freedoms and legal protections, but it requires us to be completely hands off the content and the authors. All work that is in compliance with our Participation Policy (PP) by an identity-verified author is published. ... I am very familiar with traditional peer-reviewed publishing. We are simply doing something different here''" Bob Butler CEO Thinker Media, ''pers. comm. JF Derry'' 25-July 17). See also [https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/bly003 Dagg (2018)]</ref> reiterating his argument, and alleging that "the orthodox Darwinist account" is wrong as "Darwin/Wallace corresponded with, were editorially assisted by, admitted to being influenced by and met with other naturalists who - it is newly discovered - had read and cited Matthew's book long before 1858".<ref name="bestthinking">Sutton, MR (2015) On Nullius in Verba: The book that uniquely re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection. Bestthinking, 12 September, but [[Patrick Matthew#cite note-Dagg2018-37|see Dagg (2018)]]</ref> <!-- excessive detail of dubious claims: Sutton's (2014) original research revealed that Loudon was editor of the journal that later published two of Blyth's (1835) <ref>''Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.''</ref> and (1836) <ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Blyth | first1 = E | year = 1836 | title = Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement | journal = The Magazine of Natural History | volume = 9 | pages = 393–409 }}</ref> papers on evolution, and that Selby was editor of the Journal that later published Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper on the introduction of new species.<ref>Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. ''The Annals and Magazine of Natural History''. Series 2, 16, 184-196.</ref> --> Sutton included as one of these ''naturalists'' the publisher [[Robert Chambers (publisher born 1802)|Robert Chambers]], and said it was significant that the book by Matthew had been cited in the weekly magazine ''[[Chambers's Edinburgh Journal]]'' on 24 March 1832,<ref>''Chambers, W. and Chambers, R (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th . p. 63''</ref> then in 1844 Chambers had published anonymously the best selling ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation]]'' which, according to Sutton, had influenced Darwin and Wallace.<ref name="bestthinking" /> In 2015, Sutton further repeated his assertion of "knowledge contamination" in the Polish journal, ''Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy (F.A.G.)'' (Philosophical Aspects of Genesis),<ref name="Sutton (2015)">Sutton, M. (2015) [http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf On Knowledge Contamination:New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin's and Wallace's Independent Conceptions of Matthew's Prior-Published Hypothesis]. ''Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy (F.A.G.)'' (Philosophical Aspects of Genesis), Volume 12,  but [[Patrick Matthew#cite note-Dagg2018-37|see Dagg (2018)]]</ref> which Sutton asserts is [[peer review|peer-reviewed]], and about which, one of the journal's editors responded, "As to Sutton, he cannot justifiably claim much credibility for his ideas just because these are published in such a journal like ours, i.e. one adopting [[Epistemological anarchism|Feyerabendian pluralism]]. If he thinks otherwise, it is only his problem. Any reasonable person should know better."<ref>Dariusz Sagan ''pers. comm.'' to JF Derry 07-09-16.</ref> In addition to his [[Academic journal#Scholarly articles|papers]] and [[e-book]], Sutton disseminates his claims against [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] via several [[blog]] sites and [[Twitter]] accounts, and public lectures: to the [[Conway Hall Ethical Society|Ethical Society]], at the [[Conway Hall]], on 27 July 2014; to the Teesside [[Skeptics in the Pub]], at O'Connells Pub in Middlehaven, a ward of [[Middlesbrough]], on 2 October 2014; and to the [[Carse of Gowrie]] Sustainability Group, at the [[James Hutton Institute]], at [[Craigiebuckler]], [[Aberdeen]], on 17 March 2016.

However, there is no direct evidence that Darwin had read the book, and his letter to Charles Lyell stating that he had ordered the book clearly indicates that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or access to it elsewhere. The particular claim that Robert Chambers had read and transmitted Matthew's ideas that are relevant to natural selection is also not supported by the facts. The article in the ''Chambers's Edinburgh Journal'' (1832, vol. 1, no. 8, 24 March, p.&nbsp;63) is not a review but only an abridged excerpt from pp.&nbsp;8–14 of ''On Naval Timber'' that amounts to no more than a recipe for pruning and contains nothing of relevance to natural selection. It is headed "ON THE TRAINING OF PLANK TIMBER" and ends with ".— Matthew on Naval Timber."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/on-naval-timber/published-excerpts/|title=Published excerpts (1831-32)|date=2015-05-12|work=PMP--The Patrick Matthew Project (by Mike Weale)|access-date=2017-05-29|language=en-US}}</ref> Even if it had been penned by Robert Chambers, this does not mean that he had read or understood, leave alone transmitted, the other passages of Matthew's book that do contain anything relevant to natural selection. Further, ''The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation'' contain nothing of relevance about natural selection. Combining these facts, Robert Chambers had probably not read or received the message about natural selection in Matthew's book, likely did not promulgate it in the Vestiges, and probably neither in conversations.