bipedalist Posted March 16, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) OTLS just posted an update on De Novo's editor - Dr. Rayford Wallace, who seems to have a D.Min., not a Ph.D. or MD or even DVM or DDS. To paraphrase Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, he's a preacher, not a scientist. In other De Novo news, they are now offering to "peer review" and publish research papers for the low low price of $1500. This is nothing new. Pay to play journals have existed for a long time. Inflation and the ease of internet formatting should probably be factored in but it would be interesting to know what you get for your $1500 and whether there is a hard copy and download option given..... preprints/reprints options, etc. ? Access cost for pay per view by persons wishing to access and download an approved article/study after the $1500 is paid. Is it going to be $30 or did the bigfoot world get a cut-rate price for the inaugural journal article for Volume 1 No. 1? Sounds like an attempt to legitimize after the water is under the bridge. Sorry. The D.Min or even D.D. is certainly not confidence-inspiring data either. Edited March 16, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) This is nothing new. Pay to play journals have existed for a long time. If you look at Jeffrey Beall's criteria for predatory journals, De Novo fulfills almost all of them. Edited March 16, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Predatory Journal. What a great classification. Yup MK's fits to a T ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I wonder how this thread would evolve in the event of a POST SPECIMEN ERA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Ketchum herself seems to think so as THE PAPER SHE HAS WRITTEN CLAIMS A CONCLUSION. Because her conclusion is a failure based on the data. SasqD you as others are are attempting to create a playing field where Ketchum is innocent until more data is provided. This is just not how scientific journal articles work. Here are some new rules which I think need to be realized. New Rules (or common sense) 1) IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM YOU MUST PROVIDE ALL DATA THAT BACKS UP THAT CLAIM. 2) IF THE DATA THAT BACKS UP YOUR CLAIM IS NOT PROVIDED YOUR CLAIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FALSE 3) IF ALL DATA IS EVENTUALLY PROVIDED THE CLAIM CAN BE RE-EVALUATED. UNTIL SUCH TIME THE CLAIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FALSE Remember, Ketchum made the claim first. She put her paper out there in public view with the statement that she has proven Bigfoot to exist. We are currently at state #2 above. Her claims are false. That's cute, but neither you nor I get to make up any rules in this process. As it stands for now, Ketchum has published her conclusions and released a snippet of data. Ketchum controls the data, its release date, etc. For some, that's not good enough. For now, I can wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 If you look at Jeffrey Beall's criteria for predatory journals, De Novo fulfills almost all of them. Wow, that should be required reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) That's cute, but neither you nor I get to make up any rules in this process. A thing called Science already made them up a long time ago. As it stands for now, Ketchum has published her conclusions and released a snippet of data. Data that does not support her conclusions. Ketchum controls the data, its release date, etc. For some, that's not good enough. What is not good enough was her paper. You'll be waiting a very long time. Edited March 16, 2013 by BipedalCurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 In regards to the paper And PR, Dr. Ketchum has said one thing and done another several times. And I haven't even been watching her for the whole 5 years. Perhaps she is consistently unreliable. When someone says, Yes, but -- she has the proof and she's going to provide it some day ... that just reminds me of a young child who hasn't seen their Daddy in months, but who thinks that he'll show up for their scheduled visit this time. He doesn't show; he doesn't call. But the child cannot accept the obvious fact of it. I fully agree with BipedalCurious' New Rules (Common Sense), because they Are common sense. It's much easier to just call this what it is instead of holding out false hopes for false promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I think as a sort of minor community in and of itself in this thread the Common Sense rules should be applied to most of the "let's wait and see arguments". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 If the data gets uploaded to the Genbank, what is going to be the response by the professional entities ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) Apparently the data has been uploaded to GenBank and they MK team are waiting now on GenBank. This is based on a post off Facebook. Edited March 17, 2013 by BigGinger To remove quoted post directly above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 If the data gets uploaded to the Genbank, what is going to be the response by the professional entities ? Most likely laughter and a new species of HomoUrrsusAmericansLemuris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 I was talking about professionals, not people that don't understand the significance of it being uploaded and think everything bigfoot related is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 If the data gets uploaded to the Genbank, what is going to be the response by the professional entities ? Well, I will scientifically evaluate the data. I think MK got some things seriously wrong, but I am still hopeful that somewhere in the midst of the confusion is something that points to BF. I just hope it will be more substantial than the data that she posted in the paper. I hope it is the complete mtDNA sequences, the sequences form the non-Illumina sequencing, and the other contigs she comments on in the manuscript - ie ALL sequencing done in this paper. I don't expect there to be the raw data though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 How many times have we seen laymen linked to the Ketchum camp post on here/FB/etc, and all of a sudden they have changed their whole style of writing, knowledge, formatting, etc, and sound like someone versed in science for a post or two? I wouldn't be surprised to find out down the road that she was his source all along. GASP, zigoapex someone just accidentily happened to say "I" instead of "she", so what? pointing that out will only get you warned and your posts deleted That is a shocking proposition! OTLS just posted an update on De Novo's editor - Dr. Rayford Wallace, who seems to have a D.Min., not a Ph.D. or MD or even DVM or DDS. To paraphrase Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, he's a preacher, not a scientist. In other De Novo news, they are now offering to "peer review" and publish research papers for the low low price of $1500. Seems like a bargain to get published, get an equivalent diploma to the editor of De Novo your own doctorate at http://thunderwoodcollege.com/, FOR FREE! If the data gets uploaded to the Genbank, what is going to be the response by the professional entities ? Ill concealed laughter. I've now seen a few references asserting Ketchum claims knowledge/data that would undo the theory of evolution. Does anybody have links or more info about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts