Guest exnihilo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Dr. Melba Ketchum Clarification on "speak"...consider the Sierra Sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So, just for argument sake, if the report has been submitted to Nature, and as I pointed out, she's "welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog", (their words not mine), where are people finding these excuses? I mean really, where are the sources for statements like: - there is the well-known and roundly discussed gag rule until the embargo is lifted (What well-known gag rule is that?) - there certainly is a restriction on leaking information pre-publication, as has been clearly laid out by Sally Ramey (certain information yes, pre-submission/original submitted version, no. A distinct difference that was not so clearly laid out.) - this is a private study, funded by private money,and that could very well influence how accessible it is to the average academic. (If Dr. Ketchum chooses not to pre-publish something fine, but her, the PR person working with her, and some of the people here on the BFF have been making it look like the journal is the one not allowing her to pre-publish.) - it would be bad PR to release anything that is suppose to meet scientific rigor without it actually passing that process first. (But if Nature is going to publish it, wouldn't that indicate their acceptance of the science utilized?) - If this is a "proof" of BF paper, then it is unprecedented. The rules change with this one, so don't bother claiming that protocol has not been met. (Do your have a link to this 'exception to the rule' from the Nature website?) - if they can prove BFs existence, then it's a once-in-a-century paper and would probably be handled differently. (Probably? I suppose it's possible, but I see nothing on the Nature website about exceptions or caveats regarding her ability to pre-publish to a personal blog.) Am I just looking in the wrong place, or misinterpreting what Nature has written on their website? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 RayG, what makes you think her paper is submitted to Nature or the Nature Group. Dr. K said it was not, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Exactly why I said ~if~ her paper had been submitted to Nature. I'm using Nature as the poster child for scientific journals here, as they are certainly well-known, publish on a wide variety of scientific topics, and have a website detailing the process involved in submitting a paper to them. It might be possible that whatever other scientific journal the paper was submitted to has a similar submission process. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So your taking these people to task when you have no idea what the policy of the journal she has submitted to is? Do you really think a journal would want a paper pre-released, that was potentially huge? Gosh, that wouldn't complicate matters would it? I would be willing to bet that even if it were the Nature group, she would be told in no uncertain terms to keep a lid on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I'm presenting a devil's advocate approach to the excuses being made from other people who also have no idea what the policy is wherever she submitted her paper. It shouldn't matter how potentially huge the paper is, if their pre-publicity rules allow the submitter to post a pre-publicity version to a personal blog, how can they punish someone for doing exactly that? I bet it would make for some interesting legal proceedings. I have provided a link to the pre-publicity rules of a reputable scientific journal, indicating exactly what is allowed by that journal. I have yet to see a link to a scientific journal that supports a more restrictive pre-publicity agreement. (if it was posted, I don't recall seeing it) RayG Edited February 21, 2012 by RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I wonder how big of an announcement it is going to be? will it just be web news or will be a giant event ? Say it is huge, how would that happen ? would it be just networks ? what if they did a special announcement from the white house ? How about if it was a worldwide announcement, that would be an unbelievable event. I am just dreaming up scenario's, in reality there's probably 1000's of scenario's, I don't have a clue, how they are going to announce it. Edited February 21, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 21, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Edited February 21, 2012 by gigantor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ray, you quote six statements by members and preface with "where are people finding these excuses? I mean really, where are the sources for statements like:" They got their information from Dr Ketchum and you know that. What's the difference between excuses and the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Let me put it another way: Other than second-hand information, what reliable source can be provided to support the arguments/excuses being used? What's really ironic is that Sally Ramey, in her example of confidentiality and pre-publicity posted elsewhere, uses the information from the Nature website. The very same information that's been linked to here on the BFF a couple times or more, which says, and I quote: "You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process)." Seriously, you don't know the difference between an excuse and the truth? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Edited February 21, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) so why is ramey talking about it more if its all secret, it either is or it isnt, more bait hype Ramey did pretty much the same thing last July, as noted by mitchw: Comment by mitchw on July 22, 2011 2:36 pm Since David Paulides writes that there will be a news conference, Ramey’s description of the publication process reasonably leads to the conclusion that Something Very Large is coming our way. I agree with other posters that it is odd that Ketchum seems to be suddenly claiming to be a witness, and a very experienced one, at that. And this really is out of her area of expertise and, as others have expressed, not what we would have expected from a paper coming from her lab. Here is my take. Firstly, I don't get the feeling that Ketchum has found a home for a paper. I don't think the hype is about that. Secondly, Paulides and Ketchum have certainly acted like a team. Thirdly, Paulides is coming out with a book in April. What is it about, you ask? Many months ago he posted at his site to the effect that they had proof of bigfoot's existence, that was no longer the issue. What they were working on was bigfoot behavior, and they were about 80% done. (I can't quote exactly because it appears that Paulides list of posts has been messed with. ) So......I would guess that the current "raising of expectations" is related to the Paulides book. I would guess that the book is related to the things that Ketchum is describing, observations of alleged bigfoot behavior. In other words, the current buzz is actually Ketchum and Ramey hyping Paulides book. If I'm right, I'd bet that in the next week or three, we'll be seeing ads for advance sales of the book, and these ads will contain references to Ketchum. I could be wrong. But it's fun to play detective. p. Edited February 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Let me put it another way: Other than second-hand information, what reliable source can be provided to support the arguments/excuses being used? What's really ironic is that Sally Ramey, in her example of confidentiality and pre-publicity posted elsewhere, uses the information from the Nature website. The very same information that's been linked to here on the BFF a couple times or more, which says, and I quote: "You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process)." Seriously, you don't know the difference between an excuse and the truth? RayG I'm not trying to make up excuses for her. I'm just puzzled by the new turns of this tale. It's not really adding up for me anymore. I'm just speculating. Ray, I think it's ridiculous not to see how the ground rules might shift for a paper of this supposed magnitude. It's really just common sense to see how both sides might view this paper differently than so many others. As to what they might do differently...I have NO IDEA!, only that it seems reasonable that it might handled in a different manner. BTW I would say that DMK would hold the upper hand in this case as NO Journal would want to let a paper PROVING the existence of BF slip away! She can say whatever she wants and they won't throw it into the circular file. Like the NDAs which are probably unenforceable in any practical sense to most of the people who signed them-yet they respect them out of courtesy, I wonder the gag order talk is simply cover for a strategy which DMK et al have decide to pursue anyway for their own reasons. And that's presuming the paper has been accepted, which seems questionable since she stated she didn't have a publication date (unlikely to be true if the paper was accepted except perhaps if interpreted in a narrow, legalistic manner, i.e. the EXACT date is unknown to her, but she knows it will be next month 'fer instance); a fact (if a fact) that is puzzling given the time involved since undertaking this study and her willingness to play up the strength of the evidence on Facebook. Another way to put it: she is extolling the virtues of her evidence while maintaining that she can't talk about said evidence because of gag rules and blackouts except that it seems that the paper hasn't been accepted because she doesn't have a publication date so no gag rules or blackouts need apply (even though according to NATURE's guidelines, they might not anyway). Kind of a strange circular illogic. Hence my Alice quote earlier. Or they all know more about what's going on than we are successfully guessing! And why hire a PR person to tell people there's nothing to talk about? At any rate, still puzzled. No thoughts on the Foundation/Preservation or controlling the direction of the public discussion angle? GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Another thought. If they released the preliminary paper, and the result was widespread jeers within popular culture, that could affect the peer review process and therefore the overall credibility of the project. It's much safer to have the paper safely vetted and published before making the case in public, it's more likely to be taken seriously. I know, I know, some of the scientists around here are already shocked by the suggestion that a scientist might let the possibility of public ridicule affect their involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts