On Evidence and Faulty Assertions about Energy Boomtowns

The process of publishing papers in professional journals and the response that follows is always intriguing. Some papers receive little to no response, whereas others garner commentary. Responses arrive from unanticipated sectors. Whether people agree or disagree with the results and inferences provides an opportunity to gauge the quality and relevance of the work. Freudenburg (2011) questions the conclusions of our paper (Berger & Beckmann 2010) on energy boomtowns and registered sexual offenders in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. He notes his 35 years of experience studying such communities and argues that our citation of older literature, use of statistics, and interpretations are flawed. The intensity and tone of these comments is both surprising and, we believe, misguided. Truth and accuracy arise neither by citation of the most recent literature nor by the latest theoretical constructs, although the framing of issues indubitably adds context. Freudenberg points out that 100 peer-reviewed papers exist on resource-dependent communities. Nevertheless, the existence of published papers on any broad topic does not mean those papers are relevant to a specific context or application. Thousands of peer-reviewed papers have been published on evolutionary genetics, but not all are relevant to studies of adaptation of a given species. Relevance lies in the eyes of the beholder. If only recently cited work is germane, as Freudenberg suggests, then he contradicts himself because the mean date of publications he cites is 27.5 years old (with reference to his own 1992 paper discounted). Credibility does not depend on the latest citations, but derives instead from appropriate study design and appropriate interpretation of results, which we have elaborated on elsewhere (Berger & Beckmann 2011). The Comment by Freudenberg asserts, “at present, their results do not support their conclusions,” which suggests he believes