On May 28, 2010, I submitted a manuscript on “Flight mechanics of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis)” to Frontiers in Zoology along with these figures and movies. The paper was rejected on July 10, 2010, based on comments by reviewers who found “severe flaws in the data analysis” according to the Editor, Juergen Heinze. The reviews are loaded with errors and fail to reveal any problems with the analysis.

Reviewer 1 claims that the paper treats the flight mechanics as incidental, but the paper discusses historical accounts and the fact that duck-like flaps were expected; applies two flap rate models to this species; presents videos of a short flight, a takeoff into level flight, and a cruising flight; reveals that there had been a misconception about the flap style; presents the first data on the flight speed and flap rate; and discusses the fact that the historical accounts, model results, and flight mechanics of the birds in the videos are all consistent. The reviewer makes comments about the Luneau video and the Collinson paper that are totally irrelevant to my paper. The reviewer claims that it is a moot point to distinguish between different types of flight but then contradicts himself by claiming that “birds flap with a much higher frequency if they are attempting to gain altitude than if they are truly in cruising flight.” The reviewer claims that it’s a “major issue” that I used a definition of aspect ratio that he claims is not “proper.” In fact, I used the same definition that Cornell used at the cited website. The reviewer claims that this “serious issue” needs to be corrected, when in fact it is perfectly correct. The reviewer questions the numbers that were used in the models. If he has an issue with any of these values, I suggest he take it up with National Geographic and Cornell. The reviewer claims that variations are “distilled down to averages,” but Pennycuick’s model calls for mean values and one of the developers of the other model informed me that his model was applied appropriately.

A scientific journal expects a reviewer to evaluate the data and analysis that are presented in the manuscript, but Reviewer 2 provided irrelevant comments such as the following:
The videos mentioned at the beginning of the results section and presented with this manuscript have been thoroughly analyzed by members of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team and convincingly dismissed as being videos of a pileated woodpecker, red-headed woodpecker, and possibly a third species — but almost certainly not one of the images is of an ivory-billed woodpecker.

No credible scientist has come forward to concur with Collins’ identification of these photos as being of ivory-billed woodpecker.

Collins bases his assertions on “data” that have been repeatedly dismissed by other scientists.

These videos are so poor in quality that they defy credulity. They are not evidence of anything except an apparent obsession by the author.
Contrary to the claims of the reviewer, the videos have actually received the most positive assessments from independent experts (Zickefoose and Tobalske) that any evidence obtained in recent decades has received. The paper covers two videos that were obtained in an area where the author had several sightings and heard kents on two occasions. The videos provide various elements of evidence, some stronger than others. An honest reviewer would evaluate the totality of this evidence, but this reviewer nitpicks about trivial issues while ignoring the strongest evidence: footage of a large bird in cruising flight with the flap style of a large woodpecker, several characteristics consistent with Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and several characteristics that rule out Pileated Woodpecker.

Reviewer 3 claims the paper is of “outstanding merit ” but undermined his case with a series of erroneous negative comments. The reviewer claimed that my “quick and dirty” finite-difference analysis is “likely invalid” and has “serious flaws.” It’s a shame that the reviewer made such baseless and uninformed comments — the analysis is indeed correct. The reviewer also claimed that the finite-difference analysis is irrelevant. It’s a shame that the reviewer wasn’t more diligent in reading the manuscript, which clearly points out that the Cornell interpretation is that the motion is due to movements of the body of the bird, not of the wing. The finite-difference estimate of the acceleration reveals that the motion is much too rapid to be the body. This argument proves beyond any doubt that the Cornell interpretation is wrong. How is it “destructive to the progress of science” to present a simple analysis that resolves an issue? Besides the fact that the critical comments of the finite-difference analysis are wrong, this part of the paper actually has nothing to do with my data and its analysis — it is simply background material. The reviewer claims that it is extremely difficult to estimate the distance of a bird from an observer. That is often true, but in this case the bird and its reflection are both clearly visible in the video (this is clearly stated in the manuscript). Since the bird and its reflection are both known, the horizontal position is known — this is elementary geometry. The reviewer brought into question the values that were used in the flap rate models. There are different ways to define and measure parameters such as wingspan and wing area. I’m sure that different results could be obtained if one were to take a measurement from a living bird, a freshly shot specimen, or various types of mounts of museum specimens. I had to consider various issues when deciding which source to consult for the application of the flap rate models. Due to the controversial nature of the topic, it was essential to choose a major source. I chose National Geographic and Cornell. If the reviewer has an issue with their data, he should take it up with them. It was perfectly valid to apply the two leading flap rate models to obtain estimates of the flap rate of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker using the best available data from leading sources. The reviewer mentioned that the evidence from an independent source should be presented or that the discussion should be omitted. This evidence is indeed presented — it is the photo by Tanner in Fig. 5 that shows an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight with the wings folded against the body. It is very important when corroborating evidence is available from an independent source. In this case, it comes from a source that nobody would question. How did the reviewer manage to miss this in his “intensive and careful review”?

Reviewer 4 only comments on superficial aspects of the videos, while totally igoring the science, such as the flap style, wingtip curves, flap rate, and flight speed of the bird in the 2008 video.