SUBJECT: Re : Review EVOLANG &NUM It is my understanding that the second review , by an impartial reviewer , was also negative . At &NUM : &NUM &NAME &NUM / &NUM / &NUM &NUM , &NAME &NAME wrote : <QUOTE> Dear &NAME , Here enclosed the mail we sent to &NAME &NAME , editor of the volume of papers arising from the recent &NAME Conference &NUM , to protest against an incorrect editorial choice since she chose as a reviewer the very proponent of the theory we critically examined in our submitted contribution . Our intention is to let the community know this dysfunctioning since it will become impossible to establish a debate if the criticized theorist can stop it as reviewer . Sincerely yours &NAME &NAME , &NAME , &NAME &NAME , Christian &NAME &NAME , As you know , the article that we have submitted for the Language Evolution volume belongs to a set of articles that refute point by point &NAME &NAME 's theory [ that ' Neanderthal man did not have the anatomical prerequisites for producing the full range of human speech ' ] . We received the &NUM reviews of our paper , and we told you that we felt it absolutely shocking that &NUM of them had been done by Ph.D 's . We proposed in consequence that at least a third reviewer should be solicited . Your answer was negative , indicating ' I know from personal experience that one can often feel extremely angry when receiving rather negative reports . ' Of course , we are perfectly aware that it is not pleasant to have a submitted paper discarded but that is not the question ( each of us has already published a large number of papers in his life , and knows what a review process is ) . In your answer you add : ' &NAME , I submitted a paper to Lingua which argued against the work on language evolution by XXX . When the reports arrived , it was clear that he was &NUM of the referees ( ... ) This is by no means an isolated experience for me : in my experience both with the &NAME &NAME ( of which I am an editor ) and in my own research , it is * normal * for &NUM of the reviewers to be the person whose work is called into question ' . We do not think that this procedure is * normal * , particularly if there are only &NUM reviewers , and there is a serious problem with the present review process . Indeed , the main opponent has been chosen as reviewer , which is definitely not correct , the more so since he used a number of arguments that clearly escape the scientific debate ( e.g. fraud accusation which is absolutely unacceptable , and that we will certainly not accept and let propagate as such ; and a curious citation about &NAME &NAME and &NAME &NAME , which has obviously nothing to do in a review process ) . Hence we are in a situation in which since the beginning , it is obvious that &NUM reviewer over &NUM will fight against this paper by any means ( even arguable &NUM ) and certainly refuse it . This is definitely unacceptable . We feel that you and Ph. &NAME are unable to take the measure of a controversy which is fair and needs to be editorially processed with a debate . We will let the community ( and first the Programme Committee of &NAME &NUM and the editors of Journals in the field of Phonetics and &NAME &NAME ) know about this review process , and make their own judgment . We hope that it will help improve further debates happen in a sounder way in the future . Sincerely yours &NAME &NAME , &NAME , &NAME &NAME , Christian &NAME &NAME - Surprisingly , the &NUM reviewers of our abstract to the &NAME conference , were quite positive about our work , as you can see . FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on the EVOLUTION of LANGUAGE &NAME , March &NUM , &NUM Dear Colleague , Thank you for submitting an abstract to this conference . I am pleased to tell you that the abstract submitted under the first-author name below has been accepted as the basis for a talk for the conference . boe Meanwhile , I include , beneath the dashed line , our referees ' comments on your abstract . Best wishes , &NAME &NAME Title of Paper : The size of the pharynx : An irrelevant parameter for speech emergence and acquisition Since &NAME & &NAME postulated in &NUM the theory that &NAME were a speechless species , the potential speech capability of &NAME has been a debated question . These authors claimed that the development of a low laryngeal position was a necessary condition for the realization of a sufficient number of vocalic contrasts , since the potential vowel space was enlarged due to an enlarged pharyngeal cavity . Like newborn infants , &NAME did not possess this ' anatomical basis of speech ' , and therefore could not speak . In this study , we refute the &NAME arguments developed by &NAME & &NAME . We quantify the vocal tract geometry by a &NAME &NAME Index corresponding to the length ratio of the pharyngeal cavity to the oral cavity . Using a new anthropomorphic articulatory model controlled by lips , jaw and tongue parameters , we introduce variations of the &NAME to approximate a vocal tract of a newborn infant , a child , a female adult and a male adult . We generate the potential maximum acoustic vowel space ( with &NUM , &NUM vowel items ) corresponding to these &NAME &NAME Index variations and we compare the results in the acoustic spaces of the first &NUM formants with well known data of phonemes of the world 's languages . Our simulations show that the Maximal Vowel Space of a given vocal tract does not depend on the &NAME &NAME Index : gestures of the tongue body , lips and jaw allow compensation for differences in the ratio between the dimensions of the oral cavity and pharynx . We infer that the vowel space of &NAME ( with high or low larynx ) was no smaller than that of a modern human and that they could produce all the vowels of the world 's languages . Our study is strictly limited to the morphological and acoustic aspects of the vocal tract , and we cannot therefore offer any definitive answer to the question of whether &NAME spoke or not . However , we do feel safe in claiming that &NAME were not morphologically handicapped for speech . A low larynx ( and large pharynx ) cannot be considered to be the ' anatomical prerequisites for producing the full range of human speech ' . If &NAME could not talk , it is unlikely to have been for the articulatory acoustic reasons advocated by &NAME & &NAME . &NAME were no more vocally handicapped than children at birth are . The brain is entirely capable of controlling a vocal instrument with a somewhat longer or shorter pharynx : these differences do not actually change the capacity for maximally contrasting vowels . There is therefore no reason to believe that the lowering of the larynx and a concomitant increase in pharynx size are necessary evolutionary pre-adaptations for speech . Referee &NUM Definitely accept . Convincing attempt to deal with a previously proposed aspect of the theory of speech evolution by deducing corollaries from emprical &NAME analysis . Referee &NUM Definitely accept . This paper is among the first to challenge the well known hypothesis of &NAME and his colleagues concerning the role of the lowered larynx in expanding the potential vowel space of &NAME sapiens , a hypothesis that has largely gone unchallenged ( despite sceptical murmurs from the wings ) for nearly &NUM years . The argument of the paper may not be without its difficulties , in so far as it rests on a model of vowel production by a modern vocal tract . Moreover , if &NAME 's hypothesis is indeed false , we are left without a plausible account of why the larynx lowered and , as &NAME observed , increased the probability of death by choking . Nonetheless , the author 's thesis is clearly argued and will doubtless stimulate much valuable discussion at the conference . &NAME &NAME Email : &EMAIL Institut de la &NAME &NAME &NAME &NAME &NAME &NUM &NUM GRENOBLE CEDEX &NUM &NAME &NAME &NAME &NAME : &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NAME : &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM <QUOTE> From foreign parts &NAME : int + &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NAME : int + &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NAME &NAME &NAME : &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM &NUM <END_QUOTE> <END_QUOTE>