- Email: [email protected]
Words of the Editor-in-Chief — Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development
Journal of Palaeogeography, 2017, 6(3): 219e223 (00124)
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-palaeogeography/
Academic discussion
Words of the Editor-in-Chief d Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development Zeng-Zhao Feng China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
Abstract Van Loon et al.'s paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India” with a new term “tomboliths” and original viewpoints should be published, but some contents need to be discussed. Shanmugam's paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics” pointed out some queries and problems about Van Loon et al.'s paper. It is an academic discussion paper and should be published as well. However, some main problems, such as the new term “tomboliths” and its origin of seismic shocks, “whether stromatolites or tomboliths are soft-sediment deformation structures or not”, etc., also need to be discussed. Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development. The more thorough academic discussions are carried out regarding academic problems, the more scientific facts and truths will become clear. All participants in this discussion are contributors. It is active to carry out the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” by our Journal of Palaeogeography. Keywords Tomboliths, Seismic shocks, Stromatolitic bioclasts, Stromatolitic gravels, Stromatolites, Softsediment deformation structures (SSDS), Academic discussion, A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend, Geological practice © 2017 China University of Petroleum (Beijing). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Petroleum (Beijing). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Received 3 March 2017; accepted 30 March 2017; available online 23 June 2017
1.
Introduction
Prof. Van Loon et al. submitted a paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India” (Van Loon et al., 2016) to the Journal
of Palaeogeography in June, 2016. This paper was specially written for the symposium of “Multi-origins of soft-sediment deformation structures and seismites” at the 14th National Conference of Palaeogeography and Sedimentology held in September, 2016 at Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, China.
E-mail address: [email protected]. Peer review under responsibility of China University of Petroleum (Beijing). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jop.2017.04.001 2095-3836/© 2017 China University of Petroleum (Beijing). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Petroleum (Beijing). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
220
Prof. Shanmugam also wrote a paper “The seismite problem” (Shanmugam, 2016) for this symposium. A thousand thanks are herein expressed to Prof. Van Loon et al., Prof. Shanmugam and all other geologists who have made contributions to this symposium. This symposium was very successful (Feng, 2017). Van Loon et al.'s paper has new meaning. I, as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Palaeogeography, decided to send it for peer-reviewing immediately. However, I thought that the new term “tomboliths” is a little difficult to understand. It may be better to use another term such as “stromatolitic gravels” or “stromatolitic pebbles” which may be easier to understand. I sent my suggestion to Prof. Van Loon, but he did not accept this suggestion. Several days later, I received one of the reviewers' comments from Prof. Shanmugam. He also thought that “tomboliths” is not suitable and suggested to use “stromatolitic clasts” instead. In addition, Prof. Shanmugam proposed some other comments as well. I think these comments from Shanmugam are advisable, therefore I invited him to write an academic discussion paper about Van Loon et al.'s paper. He accepted my suggestion. Of course, comments from Shanmugam and me did not influence the publication of Van Loon et al.'s paper in the Journal of Palaeogeography. Shanmugam finished his academic discussion paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics” very quickly and I sent it for peer-review at once. Reviewers sent back their comments after some time and basically agreed with Shanmugam's comments. However they proposed at the same time that some expressions in Shanmugam's paper were too harsh which is not favorable for academic discussions, and that some viewpoints should be revised. I agreed with these reviewers' comments. I think that an academic discussion should “target at academic problems but not at persons”. Any different viewpoints even opposite viewpoints can be openly discussed, as long as they are “speech on grounds” and “speech on politeness”, i.e., they should respect the authors with opposite viewpoints. Based on these three points, any different opinions can be discussed and free debate can be followed. Therefore, the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” will be carried out. It will promote scientific development. Shanmugam basically agreed with the suggestions from the reviewers and me and revised his paper. There are basically no harsh expressions in his revised paper. However, he insisted on his viewpoints. Since his
Z.-Z. Feng
paper is an academic discussion paper, I, reviewers and editors cannot force him to revise his viewpoints. Therefore, I decided to publish his revised paper in the Journal of Palaeogeography. Certainly, some academic viewpoints of Prof. Shanmugam's paper also need further discussions. I invited Prof. Van Loon et al. to write a “Reply” to Shanmugam's paper with counter-criticism, discussion and contending. I wrote this paper “Words of the Editor-in-Chief d Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development” and proposed my opinions about some main problems of this discussion. In this issue of the JoP, the above three papers, i.e., Shanmugam's paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics” (Shanmugam, 2017), Van Loon et al.'s paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Reply” (Van Loon et al., 2017), and my paper “Words of the Editor-in-Chief d Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development”, will be published together. I sincerely welcome criticisms and corrections from all readers and hope the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” will be carried out in our Journal of Palaeogeography.
2.
Some main problems
Shanmugam questioned and commented on Van Loon et al.'s paper mainly about the following 5 aspects (Shanmugam, 2017). My paper will illustrate my opinions about these problems.
2.1.
About tomboliths
As mentioned above, I think the term “tomboliths” is a little difficult to understand. I suggested to use “stromatolitic gravels” or “stromatolitic pebbles”. Shanmugam originally suggested to use “stromatolitic clasts”. Now, in section 2 of his paper, he suggested to use “stromatolitic bioclasts”. I think both terms are acceptable. The discussion about this new term “tomboliths” was set off by me. Shanmugam and I both proposed the above suggestions to make it easier for understanding and more acceptable for readers. If Van Loon et al. think that the “tomboliths” is meaningful, they can certainly continue to use this term, since they have the right to coin and interpret this new term.
Words of the Editor-in-Chief
I hope readers worldwide will propose their valuable viewpoints about this problem.
2.2.
About the omission of empirical data
Shanmugam described in the section 3 of his paper that empirical data especially a column map of stratigraphy and sedimentary facies of the study area are lacking in Van Loon et al.'s paper. I think this comment from Shanmugam is rational. In my mind, if Van Loon et al. could add a column map of stratigraphy and sedimentary facies of the study area, in which each “tombolith” could be marked at its deformed layer, it would improve their paper and will be convenient for illustration of seismic shock as the only origin of “tomboliths”, because Van Loon et al. considered the deformed layers of the study area as seismites.
2.3.
About “angular unconformity”
Van Loon et al. in their paper described the contact boundary between two sets of laminae in “tomboliths” as an “angular unconformity”. Shanmugam in the section 4 of his paper proposed that it is a misapplication of stratigraphic concept of “angular unconformity”. My opinion is that Van Loon et al. just need to clearly illustrate the contact boundary between two sets of laminae in tomboliths and it is better not to borrow the stratigraphic term “angular unconformity”. This borrowed term “angular unconformity” will easily lead to misunderstanding by readers. I think it's inappropriate to borrow the stratigraphic term. In my mind, it is unnecessary to discuss this borrowed term excessively. This borrowed term is not the emphasis of this discussion. The emphasis of this academic discussion is the origin of “tomboliths”.
2.4.
About the origin of “tomboliths”
Van Loon et al. considered the deformed layers of the study area as seismites. Please see the page 389 of Van Loon et al.'s paper: “… … the interpretation of the deformed layers, including that with the tomboliths, as seismites”. Van Loon et al. also considered the tomboliths must be deduced only by seismic shocks. Please see the page 388 of Van Loon et al.'s paper: “On the basis of the above, it must be deduced that only a seismic shock (or, more probably, a series of seismic shocks) must be held … …for the formation of the tomboliths”. These two paragraphs are the viewpoints about the seismic origin of “tomboliths” by Van Loon et al.
221
Shanmugam in sections 5 and 6 of his paper, used “multiple origins of earthquakes” to question the seismic origin of “tomboliths”. I think these two sections of Shanmugam's paper did not touch the essential problem which is that Van Loon et al. did not provide convincing evidence to illustrate that seismic shocks are the only origin of tomboliths. In my mind, about a specific study area (E India), a specific stratum (Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation) and a specific geological phenomenon (tomboliths), only through studying practical data of the geological phenomenon in its stratum and study area, analyzing these data in details and obtaining solid evidence, a reasonable and convincing conclusion about the origin of “tomboliths” can be acquired. Van Loon et al. in the page 387 of their paper stated: “Our interpretation of the genesis of the tomboliths is based on three presumptions: (1) the tomboliths represent fragments of a broken-up stromatolite; (2) the breaking-up was a result of seismic shocks, and (3) the fragments must have been displaced”. Shanmugam in the section 8 of his paper pointed out that the origin explanation of tomboliths should be “data-based” and not be “presumption-based”. I think Shanmugam's comment is rational. But in my mind, these three presumptions proposed by Van Loon et al. are not entire presumptions. The point (1) “the tomboliths represent fragments of a broken-up stromatolite” is a fact and right, but not a presumption. The point (3) “the fragments must have been displaced” is also right, because the tomboliths are rounded. The problem lies in what is the displacement process of the stromatolitic fragments. The statements of Van Loon et al. about the displacement process of the stromatolitic fragments are mostly presumed. The point (2) “the breaking-up was a result of seismic shocks” should be based on solid evidence. Therefore, it may be concluded that the lack of solid evidence of seismic shocks and some presumptions in Van Loon et al.'s paper obviously influenced their explanation of only seismic shocks as the origin of tomboliths.
2.5.
About liquefaction
In the section 7 of Shanmugam's paper, he thought that Van Loon et al. considered the tomboliths as SSDS and questioned that Van Loon et al. did not discuss the liquefaction. Please see the section 7 of Shanmugam's paper. However, in the page 388 of Van Loon et al.'s paper, they did not state clearly that tomboliths are SSDS.
222
Z.-Z. Feng
But, in the “Introduction” of Van Loon et al.'s paper, it might be or should be that they considered the stromatolites and tomboliths as SSDS. Please see the first paragraph of introduction of Van Loon et al.'s paper, especially the last sentence: “An extensive classification work on soft-sediment deformation structures (SSDS) in siliciclastic sediments (Van Loon, 2009) depicted some structures that were described as enigmatic (Fig. 1) because no satisfactory genetic interpretation could be provided at the time. These enigmatic SSDS had been found in the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation (E India)” (Van Loon et al., 2016). “Tomboliths are SSDS”, especially “stromatolites are SSDS”, is a very important subject which should be paid great emphasis and illustrated a great length in a paper. Recently, I received an email from Prof. Van Loon. He said: “We did not state and consider stromatolites or tomboliths as SSDS”. I agree with Prof. Van Loon's this viewpoint. It means that “stromatolites and tomboliths are not SSDS”. It means that Prof. Van Loon et al., Prof. Shanmugam and me have got a common understanding. It is one of the results of this academic discussion. It is a good result for us. Owing to the fact that the tomboliths and stromatolites are not SSDS, it will be unnecessary to discuss the academic problem of liquefaction any more.
3.
Conclusions
1) Van Loon et al.'s paper has new meaning and deserves to be published, but some contents need to be discussed. 2) Shanmugam's paper pointed out some queries and problems about Van Loon et al.'s paper. It is a normal academic discussion paper and should be published as well, but some problems also need to be discussed. 3) I, as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Palaeogeography, read the papers by Van Loon et al. and Shanmugam again and again, and write this paper to illustrate my opinions. This paper is a further discussion about the main problems of Shanmugam's and Van Loon et al.'s papers. 4) Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development and is the reflection of the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought
contend” which has been carried out by the Journal of Palaeogeography. 5) The paper by Van Loon et al. attracted the readers' attention and discussion which is really a good thing. Queries and discussions by Shanmugam's paper about Van Loon et al.'s paper are a good thing as well. It is necessary for me to write this paper and to participate in this discussion. These academic discussions will promote the understanding of the papers by Van Loon et al. and Shanmugam, will promote development of the Journal of Palaeogeography, and will promote research progress of this academic domain. The more thorough academic discussions are carried out regarding academic problems, the more scientific facts and truths will become clear. Therefore, all participants in these academic discussions are contributors. I heartily thank Prof. Van Loon et al., Prof. Shanmugam, other researchers and all readers. 6) Sometimes, common understanding of some academic problems may be difficult to be acquired immediately. We can “seek common ground while put aside differences” and let geological practice solve the problems. 7) Mao Tsetung said: “Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and sciences. … … Different forms and styles in art should develop freely and different schools in science should contend freely. We think that it is harmful to the growth of art and science if administrative measures are used to impose one particular style of art or school of thought and to ban another. Questions of right and wrong in the arts and sciences should be settled through free discussion in artistic and scientific circles and through practical work in these fields. They should not be settled in an over-simple manner” (Mao, 1937). Deng Xiaoping said: “Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth” (Deng, 1982). 8) I would like to share the above two philosophical quotations with Van Loon et al., Shanmugam and all readers. Let readers and geological practice test and eventually solve the right and wrong of these discussion problems. Let us work together to promote the continuous elevation of the academic quality of the Journal of Palaeogeography and the continuous innovation and development of palaeogeography.
Words of the Editor-in-Chief
Acknowledgements I heartily thank Yuan Wang, Xiu-Juan Zheng, Min Liu and Xiu-Fang Hu for their helpful comments and corrections of the original version of this paper. Special thanks are given to reviewers Profs. Stephen Kershaw, Ian D. Someville, Zhong-Qiang Chen, Yuan-Sheng Du, Tian-Rui Song, Yi-Ming Gong, and De-chen Su for their valuable comments and corrections of this paper. Finally, I would like to thank Prof. Shanmugam and Prof. Van Loon for their comments and corrections on my revised version of this paper.
References Deng, X.P., 1982. Work with one heart and one mind for construction, 1993. In: Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Volume 3. People Press, Beijing, pp. 9e11 (in Chinese).
223 Feng, Z.Z., 2017. A successful symposium of “Multi-origin of soft-sediment deformation structures and seismites”. Journal of Palaeogeography, 6(1), 1e6. Mao, T.T., 1937. On the correct handing of contradictions among the people, 1977. In: Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, First Edition, Volume 5. Foreign Languages Press, Peking, pp. 384e421. Shanmugam, G., 2016. The seismite problem. Journal of Palaeogeography, 5(4), 318e362. Shanmugam, G., 2017. The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics. Journal of Palaeogeography, 6(3), 224e234. Van Loon, A.J., Mazumder, R., De, S., 2016. The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India. Journal of Palaeogeography, 5(4), 381e390. Van Loon, A.J., Mazumder, R., De, S., 2017. The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Reply. Journal of Palaeogeography, 6(3), 235e241.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-palaeogeography/
Academic discussion
Words of the Editor-in-Chief d Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development Zeng-Zhao Feng China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
Abstract Van Loon et al.'s paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India” with a new term “tomboliths” and original viewpoints should be published, but some contents need to be discussed. Shanmugam's paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics” pointed out some queries and problems about Van Loon et al.'s paper. It is an academic discussion paper and should be published as well. However, some main problems, such as the new term “tomboliths” and its origin of seismic shocks, “whether stromatolites or tomboliths are soft-sediment deformation structures or not”, etc., also need to be discussed. Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development. The more thorough academic discussions are carried out regarding academic problems, the more scientific facts and truths will become clear. All participants in this discussion are contributors. It is active to carry out the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” by our Journal of Palaeogeography. Keywords Tomboliths, Seismic shocks, Stromatolitic bioclasts, Stromatolitic gravels, Stromatolites, Softsediment deformation structures (SSDS), Academic discussion, A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend, Geological practice © 2017 China University of Petroleum (Beijing). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Petroleum (Beijing). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Received 3 March 2017; accepted 30 March 2017; available online 23 June 2017
1.
Introduction
Prof. Van Loon et al. submitted a paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India” (Van Loon et al., 2016) to the Journal
of Palaeogeography in June, 2016. This paper was specially written for the symposium of “Multi-origins of soft-sediment deformation structures and seismites” at the 14th National Conference of Palaeogeography and Sedimentology held in September, 2016 at Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, China.
E-mail address: [email protected]. Peer review under responsibility of China University of Petroleum (Beijing). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jop.2017.04.001 2095-3836/© 2017 China University of Petroleum (Beijing). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Petroleum (Beijing). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
220
Prof. Shanmugam also wrote a paper “The seismite problem” (Shanmugam, 2016) for this symposium. A thousand thanks are herein expressed to Prof. Van Loon et al., Prof. Shanmugam and all other geologists who have made contributions to this symposium. This symposium was very successful (Feng, 2017). Van Loon et al.'s paper has new meaning. I, as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Palaeogeography, decided to send it for peer-reviewing immediately. However, I thought that the new term “tomboliths” is a little difficult to understand. It may be better to use another term such as “stromatolitic gravels” or “stromatolitic pebbles” which may be easier to understand. I sent my suggestion to Prof. Van Loon, but he did not accept this suggestion. Several days later, I received one of the reviewers' comments from Prof. Shanmugam. He also thought that “tomboliths” is not suitable and suggested to use “stromatolitic clasts” instead. In addition, Prof. Shanmugam proposed some other comments as well. I think these comments from Shanmugam are advisable, therefore I invited him to write an academic discussion paper about Van Loon et al.'s paper. He accepted my suggestion. Of course, comments from Shanmugam and me did not influence the publication of Van Loon et al.'s paper in the Journal of Palaeogeography. Shanmugam finished his academic discussion paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics” very quickly and I sent it for peer-review at once. Reviewers sent back their comments after some time and basically agreed with Shanmugam's comments. However they proposed at the same time that some expressions in Shanmugam's paper were too harsh which is not favorable for academic discussions, and that some viewpoints should be revised. I agreed with these reviewers' comments. I think that an academic discussion should “target at academic problems but not at persons”. Any different viewpoints even opposite viewpoints can be openly discussed, as long as they are “speech on grounds” and “speech on politeness”, i.e., they should respect the authors with opposite viewpoints. Based on these three points, any different opinions can be discussed and free debate can be followed. Therefore, the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” will be carried out. It will promote scientific development. Shanmugam basically agreed with the suggestions from the reviewers and me and revised his paper. There are basically no harsh expressions in his revised paper. However, he insisted on his viewpoints. Since his
Z.-Z. Feng
paper is an academic discussion paper, I, reviewers and editors cannot force him to revise his viewpoints. Therefore, I decided to publish his revised paper in the Journal of Palaeogeography. Certainly, some academic viewpoints of Prof. Shanmugam's paper also need further discussions. I invited Prof. Van Loon et al. to write a “Reply” to Shanmugam's paper with counter-criticism, discussion and contending. I wrote this paper “Words of the Editor-in-Chief d Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development” and proposed my opinions about some main problems of this discussion. In this issue of the JoP, the above three papers, i.e., Shanmugam's paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics” (Shanmugam, 2017), Van Loon et al.'s paper “The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Reply” (Van Loon et al., 2017), and my paper “Words of the Editor-in-Chief d Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development”, will be published together. I sincerely welcome criticisms and corrections from all readers and hope the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” will be carried out in our Journal of Palaeogeography.
2.
Some main problems
Shanmugam questioned and commented on Van Loon et al.'s paper mainly about the following 5 aspects (Shanmugam, 2017). My paper will illustrate my opinions about these problems.
2.1.
About tomboliths
As mentioned above, I think the term “tomboliths” is a little difficult to understand. I suggested to use “stromatolitic gravels” or “stromatolitic pebbles”. Shanmugam originally suggested to use “stromatolitic clasts”. Now, in section 2 of his paper, he suggested to use “stromatolitic bioclasts”. I think both terms are acceptable. The discussion about this new term “tomboliths” was set off by me. Shanmugam and I both proposed the above suggestions to make it easier for understanding and more acceptable for readers. If Van Loon et al. think that the “tomboliths” is meaningful, they can certainly continue to use this term, since they have the right to coin and interpret this new term.
Words of the Editor-in-Chief
I hope readers worldwide will propose their valuable viewpoints about this problem.
2.2.
About the omission of empirical data
Shanmugam described in the section 3 of his paper that empirical data especially a column map of stratigraphy and sedimentary facies of the study area are lacking in Van Loon et al.'s paper. I think this comment from Shanmugam is rational. In my mind, if Van Loon et al. could add a column map of stratigraphy and sedimentary facies of the study area, in which each “tombolith” could be marked at its deformed layer, it would improve their paper and will be convenient for illustration of seismic shock as the only origin of “tomboliths”, because Van Loon et al. considered the deformed layers of the study area as seismites.
2.3.
About “angular unconformity”
Van Loon et al. in their paper described the contact boundary between two sets of laminae in “tomboliths” as an “angular unconformity”. Shanmugam in the section 4 of his paper proposed that it is a misapplication of stratigraphic concept of “angular unconformity”. My opinion is that Van Loon et al. just need to clearly illustrate the contact boundary between two sets of laminae in tomboliths and it is better not to borrow the stratigraphic term “angular unconformity”. This borrowed term “angular unconformity” will easily lead to misunderstanding by readers. I think it's inappropriate to borrow the stratigraphic term. In my mind, it is unnecessary to discuss this borrowed term excessively. This borrowed term is not the emphasis of this discussion. The emphasis of this academic discussion is the origin of “tomboliths”.
2.4.
About the origin of “tomboliths”
Van Loon et al. considered the deformed layers of the study area as seismites. Please see the page 389 of Van Loon et al.'s paper: “… … the interpretation of the deformed layers, including that with the tomboliths, as seismites”. Van Loon et al. also considered the tomboliths must be deduced only by seismic shocks. Please see the page 388 of Van Loon et al.'s paper: “On the basis of the above, it must be deduced that only a seismic shock (or, more probably, a series of seismic shocks) must be held … …for the formation of the tomboliths”. These two paragraphs are the viewpoints about the seismic origin of “tomboliths” by Van Loon et al.
221
Shanmugam in sections 5 and 6 of his paper, used “multiple origins of earthquakes” to question the seismic origin of “tomboliths”. I think these two sections of Shanmugam's paper did not touch the essential problem which is that Van Loon et al. did not provide convincing evidence to illustrate that seismic shocks are the only origin of tomboliths. In my mind, about a specific study area (E India), a specific stratum (Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation) and a specific geological phenomenon (tomboliths), only through studying practical data of the geological phenomenon in its stratum and study area, analyzing these data in details and obtaining solid evidence, a reasonable and convincing conclusion about the origin of “tomboliths” can be acquired. Van Loon et al. in the page 387 of their paper stated: “Our interpretation of the genesis of the tomboliths is based on three presumptions: (1) the tomboliths represent fragments of a broken-up stromatolite; (2) the breaking-up was a result of seismic shocks, and (3) the fragments must have been displaced”. Shanmugam in the section 8 of his paper pointed out that the origin explanation of tomboliths should be “data-based” and not be “presumption-based”. I think Shanmugam's comment is rational. But in my mind, these three presumptions proposed by Van Loon et al. are not entire presumptions. The point (1) “the tomboliths represent fragments of a broken-up stromatolite” is a fact and right, but not a presumption. The point (3) “the fragments must have been displaced” is also right, because the tomboliths are rounded. The problem lies in what is the displacement process of the stromatolitic fragments. The statements of Van Loon et al. about the displacement process of the stromatolitic fragments are mostly presumed. The point (2) “the breaking-up was a result of seismic shocks” should be based on solid evidence. Therefore, it may be concluded that the lack of solid evidence of seismic shocks and some presumptions in Van Loon et al.'s paper obviously influenced their explanation of only seismic shocks as the origin of tomboliths.
2.5.
About liquefaction
In the section 7 of Shanmugam's paper, he thought that Van Loon et al. considered the tomboliths as SSDS and questioned that Van Loon et al. did not discuss the liquefaction. Please see the section 7 of Shanmugam's paper. However, in the page 388 of Van Loon et al.'s paper, they did not state clearly that tomboliths are SSDS.
222
Z.-Z. Feng
But, in the “Introduction” of Van Loon et al.'s paper, it might be or should be that they considered the stromatolites and tomboliths as SSDS. Please see the first paragraph of introduction of Van Loon et al.'s paper, especially the last sentence: “An extensive classification work on soft-sediment deformation structures (SSDS) in siliciclastic sediments (Van Loon, 2009) depicted some structures that were described as enigmatic (Fig. 1) because no satisfactory genetic interpretation could be provided at the time. These enigmatic SSDS had been found in the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation (E India)” (Van Loon et al., 2016). “Tomboliths are SSDS”, especially “stromatolites are SSDS”, is a very important subject which should be paid great emphasis and illustrated a great length in a paper. Recently, I received an email from Prof. Van Loon. He said: “We did not state and consider stromatolites or tomboliths as SSDS”. I agree with Prof. Van Loon's this viewpoint. It means that “stromatolites and tomboliths are not SSDS”. It means that Prof. Van Loon et al., Prof. Shanmugam and me have got a common understanding. It is one of the results of this academic discussion. It is a good result for us. Owing to the fact that the tomboliths and stromatolites are not SSDS, it will be unnecessary to discuss the academic problem of liquefaction any more.
3.
Conclusions
1) Van Loon et al.'s paper has new meaning and deserves to be published, but some contents need to be discussed. 2) Shanmugam's paper pointed out some queries and problems about Van Loon et al.'s paper. It is a normal academic discussion paper and should be published as well, but some problems also need to be discussed. 3) I, as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Palaeogeography, read the papers by Van Loon et al. and Shanmugam again and again, and write this paper to illustrate my opinions. This paper is a further discussion about the main problems of Shanmugam's and Van Loon et al.'s papers. 4) Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development and is the reflection of the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought
contend” which has been carried out by the Journal of Palaeogeography. 5) The paper by Van Loon et al. attracted the readers' attention and discussion which is really a good thing. Queries and discussions by Shanmugam's paper about Van Loon et al.'s paper are a good thing as well. It is necessary for me to write this paper and to participate in this discussion. These academic discussions will promote the understanding of the papers by Van Loon et al. and Shanmugam, will promote development of the Journal of Palaeogeography, and will promote research progress of this academic domain. The more thorough academic discussions are carried out regarding academic problems, the more scientific facts and truths will become clear. Therefore, all participants in these academic discussions are contributors. I heartily thank Prof. Van Loon et al., Prof. Shanmugam, other researchers and all readers. 6) Sometimes, common understanding of some academic problems may be difficult to be acquired immediately. We can “seek common ground while put aside differences” and let geological practice solve the problems. 7) Mao Tsetung said: “Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and sciences. … … Different forms and styles in art should develop freely and different schools in science should contend freely. We think that it is harmful to the growth of art and science if administrative measures are used to impose one particular style of art or school of thought and to ban another. Questions of right and wrong in the arts and sciences should be settled through free discussion in artistic and scientific circles and through practical work in these fields. They should not be settled in an over-simple manner” (Mao, 1937). Deng Xiaoping said: “Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth” (Deng, 1982). 8) I would like to share the above two philosophical quotations with Van Loon et al., Shanmugam and all readers. Let readers and geological practice test and eventually solve the right and wrong of these discussion problems. Let us work together to promote the continuous elevation of the academic quality of the Journal of Palaeogeography and the continuous innovation and development of palaeogeography.
Words of the Editor-in-Chief
Acknowledgements I heartily thank Yuan Wang, Xiu-Juan Zheng, Min Liu and Xiu-Fang Hu for their helpful comments and corrections of the original version of this paper. Special thanks are given to reviewers Profs. Stephen Kershaw, Ian D. Someville, Zhong-Qiang Chen, Yuan-Sheng Du, Tian-Rui Song, Yi-Ming Gong, and De-chen Su for their valuable comments and corrections of this paper. Finally, I would like to thank Prof. Shanmugam and Prof. Van Loon for their comments and corrections on my revised version of this paper.
References Deng, X.P., 1982. Work with one heart and one mind for construction, 1993. In: Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Volume 3. People Press, Beijing, pp. 9e11 (in Chinese).
223 Feng, Z.Z., 2017. A successful symposium of “Multi-origin of soft-sediment deformation structures and seismites”. Journal of Palaeogeography, 6(1), 1e6. Mao, T.T., 1937. On the correct handing of contradictions among the people, 1977. In: Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, First Edition, Volume 5. Foreign Languages Press, Peking, pp. 384e421. Shanmugam, G., 2016. The seismite problem. Journal of Palaeogeography, 5(4), 318e362. Shanmugam, G., 2017. The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Discussion and liquefaction basics. Journal of Palaeogeography, 6(3), 224e234. Van Loon, A.J., Mazumder, R., De, S., 2016. The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India. Journal of Palaeogeography, 5(4), 381e390. Van Loon, A.J., Mazumder, R., De, S., 2017. The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks: tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India: Reply. Journal of Palaeogeography, 6(3), 235e241.