Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Wow, nobody took a stab at my questions. Easy Furious, there's no standard for what has to be done to get something like Ketchum's alleged paper published. Will anyone else test the hair during this process? I doubt it; this would be highly irregular. The onus is on the authors to demonstrate that they've treated the material appropriately and that their analysis conforms to commonly accepted methods for such work. This actually does illustrate the greatest limitation of the peer-review process: it is really vulnerable to fraud. Do the results have to be replicated by others with her samples in order to accepted? No, but the Methods have to be written in such a way as to be repliCABLE. I would say that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would want to see an independent, replicated effort published in an equally weighty journal before they'd accept a scientific description of a bigfoot based on DNA analysis of suspected hairs. If "no" to the above two questions......... Will they verify that the database she used has results from every known primate? A good review would look very carefully at the comparisons made to make sure that the suggested placement of the "unknown" DNA on the phylogenetic tree was best supported by the data. BTW, I've read speculation that Ketchum has nothing other than human DNA that contains some rare polymorphisms, so I wouldn't get my hopes up about her publishing some great "bigfoot reveal" paper anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 BTW, I've read speculation that Ketchum has nothing other than human DNA that contains some rare polymorphisms, so I wouldn't get my hopes up about her publishing some great "bigfoot reveal" paper anytime soon. Uh, yeah, and we all know how factual speculation can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Uh, yeah, and we all know how factual speculation can be. Mm hmm, about as factual as speculation that Ketchum has "bigfoot" DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I just read the term "Criticism Based on Speculation". How many times have we seen that from a Critical Thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Mm hmm, about as factual as speculation that Ketchum has "bigfoot" DNA. What would she be publishing about if she felt it was just Human DNA? The fact that we could find human hairs in the woods? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 What would she be publishing about if she felt it was just Human DNA? The fact that we could find human hairs in the woods? LOL I agree "LOL". If she has something that she intends to submit, then one assumes that she is convinced that it's not Homo sapiens or anything else currently described. Whether her analysis can convince others of the same conclusion remains to be seen. There's nothing but rumor and speculation that Ketchum will submit anything in the first place. I've got a long list of papers I've fully intended to submit but never actually have. For all we know, Ketchum could discover something in her analysis that gives her pause and prevents her from submitting. This happens in science all the time. Even if she was ready to go and submitted something today, it could be a year or more before it makes it into print. Alternatively, it could rejected and she could shop around for other journals before ever getting it published. That could take years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I just read the term "Criticism Based on Speculation". How many times have we seen that from a Critical Thinker. Too often. Many Critical Thinkers will accept ANY theory that defends their favored hypothesis over facts that don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Even if she was ready to go and submitted something today, it could be a year or more before it makes it into print. Alternatively, it could rejected and she could shop around for other journals before ever getting it published. That could take years. So much for the idea that the "scientific community" is just champing at the bit to publish bf related papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 So much for the idea that the "scientific community" is just champing at the bit to publish bf related papers. Your ignorance is showing, Mulder. Consider this timeline for an accepted paper: Submit manuscript. Editor finds three qualified and available reviewers. Reviewers agree to review and conduct their reviews. Reviewers submit comments to editor. Editor makes decision on manuscript; communicates back to author. Author makes revisions suggested by editor; resubmits. Editor sends revised version back to reviewers. Reviewers submit final word to editor. Editor makes final decision. Editorial staff prepare galley proofs. Author reviews galleys; sends payment of page charges. Paper is now in line to get published in next available slot, usually one or two issues down the road. Most journals published quarterly. One year from submission to publication would be regarded as very speedy for most outlets in ecology/field biology/zoology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I agree "LOL". If she has something that she intends to submit, then one assumes that she is convinced that it's not Homo sapiens or anything else currently described. Whether her analysis can convince others of the same conclusion remains to be seen.There's nothing but rumor and speculation that Ketchum will submit anything in the first place. I've got a long list of papers I've fully intended to submit but never actually have. For all we know, Ketchum could discover something in her analysis that gives her pause and prevents her from submitting. This happens in science all the time. Even if she was ready to go and submitted something today, it could be a year or more before it makes it into print. Alternatively, it could rejected and she could shop around for other journals before ever getting it published. That could take years. If the data were clear and irrefutable and the entire paper were ready to go, I'd expect the top journals to get first crack. If they even hesitated they might loose the chance to some other journal. This discovery is just too huge for them to pass up. No doubt they'll want it done right and I know Ketchum wants it done right too. I'd expect they would work hard to get every kink out of it , then it would go to the top of the list for print wouldn't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 If all Ketchum had was a bunch of random human samples showing "rare" polymorphisms, then those polymorphisms couldn't be all that rare at all. She would make a major discovery: the Pineys, now featured across the US. Get yer banjos out boys! Consider this timeline for an accepted paper: Submit manuscript. Editor finds three one or two qualified and available reviewers. Reviewers agree to review and conduct their reviews. Reviewers submit comments to editor. Editor makes decision on manuscript; communicates back to author. Author makes revisions suggested by editor; resubmits. Editor sends revised version back to reviewers. Reviewers submit final word to editor. Editor makes final decision. Editorial staff prepare galley proofs. Author reviews galleys; sends payment of page charges. Paper is now in line to get published in next available slot, usually one or two issues down the road. Most journals published quarterly monthly. One year from submission to publication would be regarded as very speedy for most outlets in ecology/field biology/zoology. More like 6 to 9 months in mine. My fastest was 2 months. My slowest was 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Thanks for answering SY, ajciani, and Saskeptic. So based on those answers, I now have to decide if this is sham or a flim flam. I always confuse the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Thanks for answering SY, ajciani, and Saskeptic. So based on those answers, I now have to decide if this is sham or a flim flam. I always confuse the two. Making a decision now would be poor judgement on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Making a decision now would be poor judgement on your part. haha lol agreed. Now how do we convince the pro-yeti people to wait? mhm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 haha lol agreed. Right. Now we wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts