|Title||Comment on 'Converging ice streams: a new paradigm for reconstructions of the Laurentide Ice Sheet in southern Ontario and deposition of the Oak Ridges Moraine'|
|Author||Russell, H A J|
|Source||Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences vol. 56, no. 8, 2019 p. 886-888, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjes-2018-0191 (Open Access)|
|Alt Series||Natural Resources Canada, Contribution Series 20180166|
|Publisher||Canadian Science Publishing|
|Media||paper; on-line; digital|
|File format||pdf (Adobe® Reader®)|
|NTS||30M/10; 30M/11; 30M/14; 30M/15; 31D/02; 31D/03; 31D/06; 31D/07; 31D/10; 31D/11|
|Area||Lake Simcoe; Markham; Scarborough; Pickering; Lake Ontario|
|Lat/Long WENS|| -79.4167 -78.6667 44.7500 43.6667|
|Subjects||surficial geology/geomorphology; stratigraphy; Science and Technology; glacial history; glaciation; ice flow; glacial deposits; glacial features; tills; moraines; tunnel valleys; depositional history;
stratigraphic analyses; Oak Ridges Moraine; Laurentide Ice Sheet; Newmarket Till; Halton Till; ice streams; ice stream margins; archival data; streamlined tills; digital elevation models; interpretation; Phanerozoic; Cenozoic; Quaternary|
|Program||Aquifer Assessment & support to mapping, Groundwater Geoscience|
|Released||2019 08 01|
The recently published paper in CJES by Sookhan et al. presented challenging interpretations regarding ice streams and the origin of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM. As researchers
we welcome ongoing work and continual testing of existing interpretations. As the most active research group working on the Oak Ridges Moraine during the past 25 year period, additional contributions and perspectives are welcomed as a necessary part
of ensuring advancement of geological interpretation and hypothesis testing. This is particularly pertinent given the statement by Sookhan et al. that the ORM is the most significant landform in southern Ontario and the importance of ORM to ongoing
management of groundwater resources in this region.
|Summary||(Plain Language Summary, not published)|
The author presents a discussion of a recently published paper in CJES that violates three of the principal research ethic guidelines of the journal.
The Discussion piece outlines these violations with examples.