Article Link: What Is 'peer Review', And How Does It Work?

[Guest]

Not unless the hoaxers are hoaxing after the sample is collected. So far that hasn't been the case.

Example: what if a certain California researcher is a hoaxer and has collected 8 uncut hair samples from pony tails of members of the Hupa tribe and then mails them to Dr Ketchum from different places in the PNW under different names. How does Ketchum's lab protocol for chain of custody prevent the hoax?

I don't disagree with you on that one and pointed out the same issue I had with Ketchum's research earlier in the thread, along with other issues regarding random hair samples sent in by just any unknown person. In your specific scenario, the hoaxer has defeated his purpose, the hair would show up 100% human and that is not proof of sasquatch. I hope the hoaxer would think that far ahead and save him or herself their time and effort as I imagine those samples would be discarded from the study as identified.

[indiefoot]

Researchers who don't respect editors and reviewers, people who have contempt for the system and are continually bashing it, have zero chance of succeeding in that process. In short, these bashers are arrogant and fingerpointers and losers. Stay away from them if you want to succeed.

Translated 'Only Behind Kissers Need Apply'

What you have said here is... If a researcher has been critical of a journal or the editors who run it, their work will be rejaected out of hand, no matter the quality of the submission. I would think that the professionals describe would be thick skinned enough to handle some heat.

[Guest]

The subject of Bigfoot is strongly associated with mistaken impressions and hoaxing. Scientific papers generally inerpret their findings and try to exclude alternative explanations. Any paper in this area should show robust methods that would be expected to detect fakery.

I agree. Fraud is probably one of the most difficult things for reviewers to detect in a stand-alone paper. Unless viewed in the context of an established body of literature, it's difficult to get a sense that any one paper's results are really against the grain or just a bit "too clean." We tend to accept data on the honor system. No reviewer has ever asked me "Did you really go to those sites to do those surveys?" It's simply assumed that I did what I described in the paper.

A "bigfoot" analysis would likely be more carefully scrutinized with respect to things like chain of command of tissue samples, and rightfully so. Until we're able to convincingly fabricate DNA, however, I wouldn't worry about it. If it's really bigfoot DNA, we'll know.

[Guest]

Three positive reviews of the work by independent experts I've hand-picked to critically evaluate the manuscript.

"Hand-picked" = stacked deck

Pull the reviewers randomly from a pool of qualified professionals who are admitted ONLY on the basis of their technical competence, not their opinions on any given topic.

[southernyahoo]

There are a couple of things that need to be said. First, editors and reviewers for scientific journals are exceedingly serious about their work. It's not a hobby or a game. They don't want to endorse a fraud and they don't want to miss a great discovery. Either way, their reputations are at risk. In many cases, careers will be affected by their decisions. Large sums of money might be affected. The entire direction of research in their field might be affected. Lives may be at risk. The process has evolved into a pretty good system. The people who do it are really smart and not driven by profit motives.

Researchers who don't respect editors and reviewers, people who have contempt for the system and are continually bashing it, have zero chance of succeeding in that process. In short, these bashers are arrogant and fingerpointers and losers. Stay away from them if you want to succeed.

One other general comment. The subject of Bigfoot is strongly associated with mistaken impressions and hoaxing. Scientific papers generally inerpret their findings and try to exclude alternative explanations. Any paper in this area should show robust methods that would be expected to detect fakery. And no, some guy saying "this couldn't be faked," is not enough. Chain of custody is almost useless in this regard. Association with shady researchers is very problematic.

By uncut ,do you mean the presumed person had never had a hair cut or that they were in the practice of ripping hair from their head?Or elsewhere?

Sounds like lots of room for bias to step in if you ask me Parn, not to say it happens though.

Edited May 3, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

Researchers who don't respect editors and reviewers, people who have contempt for the system and are continually bashing it, have zero chance of succeeding in that process. In short, these bashers are arrogant and fingerpointers and losers. Stay away from them if you want to succeed.

In other words: "I don't like you so I'm gonna dink your research..." which is exactly why I don't trust "scientists" to police themselves through "peer review".

[Guest themanta]

which is exactly why I don't trust "scientists" to police themselves through "peer review".

Unless your idol does it of course.

[Guest RayG]

In your specific scenario, the hoaxer has defeated his purpose, the hair would show up 100% human and that is not proof of sasquatch.

In other words it would be indistinguishable from human hair, just like hairs already examined by Henner Fahrenbach.

RayG

[Guest]

In other words it would be indistinguishable from human hair, just like hairs already examined by Henner Fahrenbach.

RayG

No, I mean it's human hair and human hair is not going to give you proof of sasquatch. It might confirm a personally held belief that bigfoot is human but that would be all. Something either is or isn't a match when doing DNA analysis. In a study like that, anything positively identified would be discarded from consideration so you probably won't read anything about all the samples that matched the human DNA profile.

[Guest RayG]

Well, since human hair IS indistinguishable from human hair, and alleged sasquatch hair HAS been declared indistinguishable from human hair, I really don't see how it would prove anything.

RayG

Edited May 3, 2011 by RayG

[Guest]

Unless your idol does it of course.

Dr Meldrum has established his bona fides as both technically competent AND intellectually honest in both word and deed.

Unlike many of the people he cites spouting close-minded platitudes and refusing to examine the evidence imparitally.

[Guest]

Well, since human hair IS indistinguishable from human hair, and alleged sasquatch hair HAS been declared indistinguishable from human hair, I really don't see how it would prove anything.

RayG

Declared by who? At this point, what bigfoot IS remains an opinion despite who expresses it. Human hair came from a human until we know there is more than one kind of human presently walking around on this earth. Preliminary research like Ketchum is doing won't determine anything if her samples match a human profile.

[Guest RayG]

Declared by who?

Fahrenbach. See the link in post #98.

RayG

[southernyahoo]

I agree. Fraud is probably one of the most difficult things for reviewers to detect in a stand-alone paper. Unless viewed in the context of an established body of literature, it's difficult to get a sense that any one paper's results are really against the grain or just a bit "too clean." We tend to accept data on the honor system. No reviewer has ever asked me "Did you really go to those sites to do those surveys?" It's simply assumed that I did what I described in the paper.

A "bigfoot" analysis would likely be more carefully scrutinized with respect to things like chain of command of tissue samples, and rightfully so. Until we're able to convincingly fabricate DNA, however, I wouldn't worry about it. If it's really bigfoot DNA, we'll know.

So there it is, The potential is there for the laymen bigfoot hunters to be held to an even higher standard because they are afforded no honor. Is that bias?

[Guest RayG]

Here, I've modified Cromer's quote so it's applicable to bigfoot:

"If the evidence is convincing enough, the skeptics scientific journal editors will in time accept almost anything, even that the continents are drifting bigfoot is frolicking about the face of the earth. But until the evidence is there, the only sane course is to reject all claims that are unverified and inconsistent with current knowledge."

There's no requirement for a scientist to drag in a dead body, any non-scientist will do.

RayG