Leaderboard

Now you are deliberately confusing the DNA with the paper. The DNA can be great, while the technical writing in the paper is lacking. Both have to be good for publishing. None of the above. I didn't say she didn't , I asked if you are satisfied she did. Bolded is a straw man. You've not heard Dr. K. say any such thing. There is much more to technical writing of a paper than misspellings and you know it. You don't even know that the paper was handed back parn, and you've already stated that it wasn't submitted to Nature, so what are the facts here? Misinterpret, absolutely not, and in fact you just made my point with the bolded part here. Saskeptic has said that Nature receives over 10,000 papers a year for submission, and publishes a tiny fraction of them. I don't see that this is necessarily because there are so many bad papers, but because they couldn't even publish all of the good ones if they wanted to.Their cup runneth over so to speak. While we argree that DNA evidence for an extant non-human primate in North America would garner anyones attention, you seem to be down playing the hurdles of publication.