Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It is not even really that I smell a sham , and of course people can spend as much time as they want conducting their research. That is stating the obvious. However, she herself has given indications in the past that a paper has been submitted or was under review at one time . This does not by any means rule out continued research as it is often common practice to be working on the next while the first is out for review . Honestly, I was not trying to even suggest that the data are not valid or concrete . Just stating that if in fact this paper was being reviewed some time ago as has been suggested , that the timeline seems quite long . There may be many reasons for this that have nothing to do with a lack of validity of the science or data , and the nature of this work may just take more time than most for obvious reasons , but the level of conflicting information , including the passing by of anticipated dates by much longer than a few months is worrisome, at least to me. It is only my opinion and not one that needs to be shared by anyone here or elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It sounds that way to me to. (Thanks for fixing the board btw) I know there are a lot of comparisons going on about other journals and so on, but really, if Ketchum has come up with something here, then it really is big news, and I can not even begin to imagine the fall out, and excitement it will generate. So I am not surprised things seem different, or paranoid,etc, afer all, you want things to be right before they are released, it has to be very solid, or it will be totally ridiculed, and harm the efforts of others who are seriously trying work on this mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) @ crystal As you stated, the implications of this, is really going to impact many areas of zoology, Biology, anthropology, etc... Samples have been taken from around the world, so there going to massive media coverage . It was stated that they really want to make sure that everything is in order before they release it. There is many different entities involved in the study, testing, samples etc... It has to be a major task just dealing with all the legal issues involved. There is probably a major issue with media coverage, they are probably trying get as much coverage as possible for the optimum splash effect. She and Erikson probably have hired professional people to deal with promoting both, to get the biggest bang out of this "once in a life time" opportunity. Of course I'm speculating but it is the nature of the beast for most of what I said to be true. And of course, we all love to be the speculating spectators, while making spectacles of ourselves on this thread. Edited February 4, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It sounds like she submitted and got feedback from the reviewers. She is now addressing the peer comments and will resubmit. No? After that it had to circulate to the other authors and then when everyone signs off they would have resubmit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Am I missing something?? PROVING that Sassy is REAL with Nuclear DNA tests that have been done and verified wouldn't be a big enough BANG? Exactly how much BIGGER could an entire auditorium full of "professionals" make that? If anything is EVER released it'll be on a website that Ketchum owns or is in partners with where you have to pay to see it, view a movie or pics and any other data and evidence they have. In reference to this "paper," the only thing I am waiting on, and am quite sure THIS WILL appear, is the excuse(s) that are given for it NOT being in a reputable scientific paper. If there are any "professionals" involved it would be to figure out how to get out of all this hype that has been ballyhooed for 3 years now. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Waynescod Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Am I missing something?? Nalajr Welcome to the world of sasquatch where nothing is ever written in stone, enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I had posted on here a few days ago also asking about all the secrecy . I was a researcher for many years..trained as a molecular biologist and have had several publications in high impact journals ( although not nature or science unfortunately). At that time I was skeptical about the statements by Ketchum that dissemination of any information would jeopardize the publication of her results, as that was not something I was familiar with . However, after looking at the specific requirements for Nature and other prestigious journals it does appear that they do state that results must not be released to media sources prior to publication . My guess is that our research was not news worthy and therefore this issue never arose, thus accounting for my unfamiliarity with these policies. on the other hand , it is common practice for researchers to present preliminary findings at scientific conferences . It could be imagined however that given the nature of these studies that presentation of any aspect of the work, even in somewhat closed sessions would bring vast amounts of media coverage thus jeopardizing the results and violating the journal's requirements . I began following this story some time ago . I am very intrigued about the possibility of definitive proof of a yet undiscovered primate in North America and all the implications that would have. In fact, I really want this to be true . However, like @Wookie73 above , I find the longer this goes on in the absence of a publication, the less likely we are to ever see that publication . The timeline of events from the best I can piece together seems to be very far off from what it should be . For example , reviewers are usually only given a few weeks in which to review a paper and make their recommendations to the editor . I have both had papers reviewed and served as a reviewer to scientific journals and this timeline is fairly standard across publishers . It is also the case that they must decide within this time frame to accept , reject , or require revisions and although revisions take time , there is often a time frame in which these revisions must be made . which is usually within a couple of months to perhaps a little longer depending on the revisions and the journal. It is of course possible that she received rejections and has had to look to alternate journals , but the time that has elapsed still seems very lengthy even taking this into consideration . Lastly, on the positive , after reading the copyright information that had been posted previously, the genes listed that were examined made a lot of sense based on the known actions of the protein products of these genes ..which at least in my mind gives validity to the studies and the science behind it . Anyway , just my two cents which may be worth less than that even To which I want to add... Summary: Peer-review process by Sally Ramey Lots of people have recently been wondering about the process of publishing scientific papers. Here is the basic process, based on my experience doing PR in higher ed: The researcher prepares a paper about their findings and submits it to a scientific journal for peer-review, which can take MONTHS. The paper is reviewed by a team of scientists with expertise in the discipline(s) involved in the researcher's work. They decide if the research was conducted according to standards and practices accepted by the scientific community, and review the findings to see if they pass muster. It's like a professor checking your work in college. If the review team has questions, they can ask the researcher to provide more info, run more tests, get someone else to run tests that replicate the work, etc. This can delay publication but it is sometimes necessary. ONLY after the review team is satisfied is the paper accepted for publication. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the scientific community's "stamp of approval" that the work is valid. The journal must then figure out when to publish the paper. Some journals work weeks/months in advance, adding further delay. Some work faster, meaning that the paper might run within a few weeks. At some point, the researcher is notified that they have a "pub date." In my experience, you often only know about three weeks out when your paper will publish. Once there is a pub date, the researcher (typically university-based) works with their campus PR folks and the journal editorial and PR staff to be sure that images are prepared for publication, news releases are written and reviewed, and everyone is prepared for the announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Never have I seen secrecy about a scientific paper like this before. I smell a big sham, published in one of those fringe journals. "Fringe" of course being identified as any journal or forum that is anything other than defaulting to the "no bigfoot" position, just as any scientist who comes at the topic from any other angle than "no bigfoot" becomes a "believer" and thus loses scientific credibility... Lovely how Skeptics get to define their own terms to their benefit, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Just wait for the sequences, Mulder. Then it will be necessary to prove the DNA is just 'human' even though it's never been seen before. The skeptic will have a positive statement to demonstrate, or be silent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 "Fringe" of course being identified as any journal or forum that is anything other than defaulting to the "no bigfoot" position, just as any scientist who comes at the topic from any other angle than "no bigfoot" becomes a "believer" and thus loses scientific credibility...Lovely how Skeptics get to define their own terms to their benefit, isn't it? You're missing the point again, despite endless explanations of how science works. Scientist will come at this, rightly, from a neutral angle. If there is a peer reviewed work, they are then free to run with it, (ie try to replicate the results), or to show how it is flawed. Their opinion will count for very little indeed.......facts count. DNA is fact. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 "Fringe" of course being identified as any journal or forum that is anything other than defaulting to the "no bigfoot" position, just as any scientist who comes at the topic from any other angle than "no bigfoot" becomes a "believer" and thus loses scientific credibility... Lovely how Skeptics get to define their own terms to their benefit, isn't it? Skeptics with benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 ............ "Human" is not a strict taxonomic designation............... Correct, So it should not be used as a symantic dodge or in an effort to cloud the issue when describing a new homind with genetic material. Lets see if we all can police ourselves on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 You're missing the point again, despite endless explanations of how science works. Scientist will come at this, rightly, from a neutral angle. If there is a peer reviewed work, they are then free to run with it, (ie try to replicate the results), or to show how it is flawed. Their opinion will count for very little indeed.......facts count. DNA is fact. Mike Scientist will come at this the way they come at everything else, they will vote their pocketbook. If this will upset years of work and a steady funding stream, they will oppose or try to down play the findings. This has the potential to really rock the boat and very few sailors like that.JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 How will this upset a scientist's finances? Declaring BF real will not place any pressure on any scientist at all really. Not even primatologists or anthropologists will be overly troubled by such a discovery. Interested will be the more likely outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 This may well be the sexy new girl on the block, the one who gets the attention and money spent on her. There are a limited number of research dollars out there, where they end up is a hotly contested battle. You know, ' all's fair in love, war, and grant chasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts