The magnificent seven: A proposal for modest revision of the quality index

Abstract

Thirty years ago, Rob Van der Voo proposed an elegant and simple system for evaluating the quality of paleomagnetic data. As a second-year Ph.D. student, the lead author remembers Rob waxing philosophical about the need to have an appropriate, but not overly rigid evaluation system. The end result was a 7-point system that assigned a (1) or (0) for any paleomagnetic result based on objective criteria. The goal was never to reject or blindly accept any particular result, but merely to indicate the degree of quality for any paleomagnetic pole. At the time, the global paleomagnetic database was burgeoning and it was deemed useful to rank older paleomagnetic results with the newer data being developed in modern laboratories. Van der Voo's, 1990 paper launched a silent revolution in paleomagnetism. Researchers began to evaluate their data against those seven criteria with the anticipation that reviewers would be similarly critical.Today, paleomagnetism is a mature science. Our methods, analyses, and results are more sophisticated than they were 30 years ago. Therefore, we feel it is appropriate to revisit the Van der Voo (1990) criteria in light of those developments. We hope to honor the intention of the original paper by keeping the criteria simple and easy to evaluate while also acknowledging the advances in science. This paper aims to update the criteria and modernize the process. We base our changes on advances in paleomagnetism and geochronology with a faithful adherence to the simplicity of the original publication. We offer the “Reliability” or “R” index as the next generation of the Van der Voo “Quality” or “Q” index. The new R-criteria evaluate seven different information items for each paleomagnetic pole including age, statistical requirements, identification of magnetic carriers, field tests, structural integrity, presence of reversals and an evaluation for possible remagnetization.