Leaderboard

Nature has also published its fair share of hoaxes. Nature was one of the favorite publishing outlets of Jan Hendrik Schön, who hoaxed several discoveries on carbon nanotubes. The journal also publishes an annual global warming special issue, in which many of the contributors were implicated in the Climate Research Unit E-mail scandal (where it was discovered, through a release of E-mails, that global warming scientists activists were altering their methods and models to obtain the results they wanted). So Nature will loosen its peer review standards to suit its own political objectives or meet its own need to publish cutting-edge research. On the topic of bigfoot, I think a Russian journal would be more likely to publish because a Russian journal is more likely to take the topic seriously. The Russian school of thought is more accepting of the unknown, while western science tends to be arrogant and closed-minded. BTW, Nature is a British journal, and as I think about the British, they would probably dismiss the article, from the first sentence, as a joke. I doubt that Ketchum will need to go to a foreign journal. She may find it difficult to publish in a multidisciplinary, general interest, cutting edge journal, but I think something like the American Journal of Human Genetics or Human Biology might be extremely interested in publishing the article. Most likely, the editors and reviewers at those journals would instantly accept the methods and results, and welcome such an upheaval article. Back, even before Ketchum announced that she was trying to publish, there were debates on the BFF about what would happen if someone tried to publish a scientific article. It pretty much went like this: Knowers: The reviewers would treat it as a joke. There is no such thing as bigfoot, therefore there can be no evidence of bigfoot. We have no idea as to how, but you must have screwed something up. Skeptics: If the work was sound, scientists would accept it. Your work seems solid, and we are unable to identify any errors in it. There must be a bigfoot, or some other explanation which eludes us, but since we don't know what that is, congratulations, you discovered bigfoot. As a scientist, the knowers hit it smack on the head. Even if half the reviewers brush it off and half review it seriously, that still kills a paper. Skeptics like to place scientists on a pedestal (except Meldrum), but while science might have its place on that pedestal, many scientists do not deserve to be there with it. What was weird about that entire argument, is that many of the skeptics advocating for the 'reasonable scientist' actually behave the way the knowers describe. I have seen a great deal of bigfoot evidence which, as individual exhibits, have only had two explanations: bigfoot or an elaborate contrivance. The skeptics choose the contrivance.