JDL Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 There'll be a flood of private money into bigfoot research. I can think of several different political agendas alone that various groups would want to persue, all aside from objective scientific investigation. And that's just within the U.S.. There will be international competition to chase down every reported hairy hominid around the world. There may soon be more orang pendek researchers than Orang Pendek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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, In a non-"fringe" journal of course. I'm not missing a point, you are ignoring MY point: Skeptics define things like "fringe" and "reputable" in such a way that any journal or scientist who makes or publishes a pro-BF statement is automatically excluded as to his reliability. So much for "neutral" Science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 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? No, Fringe meaning any journal that publishes woo as opposed to one that publishes confirmed scientific data that follows the scientific method and has been independently verified by scientists in that particular field. I'd be as excited as anyone if this turns out to be published in one of the big science journals. But, if it ends up in something like The Journal for Scientific Exploration, or similar, it's not going to be well regarded by the scientific community at large and will not be taken as evidence of anything. Believers should feel similarly. Not that this can possibly "prove" Bigfoot is real. But it could possibly shw there is evidence for an unknown primate and could get the ball rolling towards mainstream science taking a direct interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 This is not going to be scientific proof of bigfoot. When the report comes out, everything in the bigfoot world will be the same, nothing groundbreaking in terms of getting mainstream science involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I am not saying for a second that it is not a process that does not take time , but in my experience which would include submission to the very same type and caliber of journals that she would be submitting to , the review process is not allowed to take months ...at least not to obtain the reviewers comments . It may take months to go back and forth with the reviewers, that is entirely correct. For example, and only in an attempt to explain my experience with it , which is just that , my experience and not anything set in stone: the last set of reviews that I was asked to do which was a couple of months ago had a deadline that was 4 weeks from the time that I received the paper. In other words, I was required to submit my recommendations within this time frame . After the comments from myself and the other two reviewers were received, the author was notified within one week of that date . . That author then will be given some set period of time in which to respond either by rebuttal or with further experiments . This provisional acceptance is usually only done if the editor feels the paper can be accepted with minor modifications. Again, each journal is different though and this is only my experience As for actual publication , that usually occurs within some months after formal acceptance , and it is during this time that proofs are sent to all authors for their edits, image quality issues are addressed , etc. However, most journals now commonly publish their recently accepted papers in an online format , known as an Epub well prior to the actual print version. Again, given the nature of this research , they may choose not to do this and to hold it for print . For example I had a publication last year that was accepted formally in late November 2010 , we received the proofs for edits in early December 2010, and it appeared online as an E pub available through medline in late December 2010 , but was not available in print form until April 2011. As others have suggested and commented , this may go by a different set of rules due to the profoundness of the data . I do entirely understand that . I guess what I dont understand is a lack of disclosure as to when the paper went out for review or where it is in the process . Anyway , it is very easy for me to sit here from the comfort of my livingroom and speculate as to the whys and hows . As a scientist , I completely respect what Dr. Ketchum is doing and I think that she has probably had to work ten times harder to prove something that would be accepted with far less scrutiny if she were trying to ID a new species of chameleon in a remote rainforest somewhere. It is probably for these reasons that the road has been long . 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. @Gigopex I completely agree and think that this just may be going by a different set of rules . It is after all not just another molec bio paper showing DNA analysis of some newly characterized gene . The implications will be huge , it is an exciting time, and these people have invested a lot . If in their shoes, we would probably all be looking to get some bang for our buck . Thanks so much for your response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Crystal, As another female scientist working in a similar area, you could perhaps try and approach Melba directly and see if you can gain any insights. She's not completely beyond reach and can be found on Twitter, Facebook or emailed directly at work. I'm sure she could use the support and I always get the impression she wants to talk, as much as she's able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) In a non-"fringe" journal of course. I'm not missing a point, you are ignoring MY point: Skeptics define things like "fringe" and "reputable" in such a way that any journal or scientist who makes or publishes a pro-BF statement is automatically excluded as to his reliability. So much for "neutral" Science... Mainstream science journal with an impeccable reputation for publishing confirmed scientific data: Fringe Journal that publishes stories on UFO's ,Ghosts and Ancient Aliens: The difference between the two isn't that one supports a no-bigfoot or a pro-bigfoot. If Ketchum's paper is published in the former and points to a brand new unknown primate in North America, it will be very exciting!! If it's published in the latter and claims "proof of Bigfoot" well, it'll be worthless.... Edited February 4, 2012 by Wookie73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I'm not missing a point, you are ignoring MY point: Skeptics define things like "fringe" and "reputable" in such a way that any journal or scientist who makes or publishes a pro-BF statement is automatically excluded as to his reliability.So much for "neutral" Science... No, you make my point for me.........It isn't the scientists with the problem, it is the so-called skeptics. (I won't argue with you over the semantics). Look, why don't you just calmly wait? Wait and see, rather than just assuming that this thing is going to bomb. If it is published in a serious, respected journal, with overwhelming proof, 95% of the naysayers will just shut up, and the rest can be ignored. There'll be too much evidence for them to sound even remotely sensible. You're anti-science because they haven't taken this issue seriously, and now that they are doing just exactly that, you don't take them seriously!! Do you not see the irony? For the life of me, I can't see why you are making such a fuss about the problems you foresee when this is mainstream science doing just exactly what you are asking it to do. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) I honestly think that some people are setting this up to be a witch hunt by science if it ends up not passing muster. Trust me, if the science was done properly and the data confirmed as unknown primate a good journal will publish it. They aren't going to refuse publication because it might make some scientists sneer. (look at how often the astronomy world gets irritated with each other) Good data=good journal publication Bad data= fringe journal publication Edited February 5, 2012 by Biggie Removed unnecessary quote and text concerning it from post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Mainstream science journal with an impeccable reputation for publishing confirmed scintific data: Fringe Journal that publishes stories on UFO's ,Ghosts and Ancient Aliens: The difference between the two isn't that one supports a no-bigfoot or a pro-bigfoot. If Ketchum's paper is published in the former and points to a brand new unknon primate in North America, it will be very exciting!! If it's published in the latter and claims "proof of Bigfoot" well, it'll be worthless.... You seem to be saying the data doesn't matter, but rather, who acknowledges it. Is that an appeal to authority fallacy, since the data wouldn't change? I understand the reputation of a journal has some bearing on a persons perception, but it doesn't affect the actual truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) ....sigh.....No, if you read all of my posts on this (and Mulder's) you will see I was replying to his mocking of my term "fringe Journal" . I was pointing out that the difference between a mainstream journal and a fringe isn't the position it takes in regards to "woo" but rather the scientific scrutiny it requires for publication. As I said above, publishing in a mainstream journal is an acknowledgement that your work has been scrutinized by leaders in the field of study and has passed muster. Journals are giving their stamp of approval to the science community that "hey, this guy's stuff is legit". Fringe journals publish things that haven't been scientifically scrutinized and or passed muster. So, yes, in a way, if it's published in a fringe journal it's scientifically dubious at best. Because it hasn't been gone over with a fine tooth comb to ensure that all the methodology and results are correct. edit: the data must be good, If it IS good, something of this magnitude would be published by a reputable journal is all I'm saying. I find it unlikely that IF THE DATA IS AS STATED, a bigtime journal would pass it up. Whereas a fringe journal would likely publish regardless of the data's accuracy (judging by things they have published in the past) Edited February 4, 2012 by Wookie73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 You seem to be saying the data doesn't matter, but rather, who acknowledges it. Is that an appeal to authority fallacy, since the data wouldn't change? I understand the reputation of a journal has some bearing on a persons perception, but it doesn't affect the actual truth. This is all about perception. They just won't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 This is not going to be scientific proof of bigfoot. When the report comes out, everything in the bigfoot world will be the same, nothing groundbreaking in terms of getting mainstream science involved. Maybe you should take another look around you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 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. That is my thoughts exactly. We are past the point in time where this is going to be published in a scientific journal that the majority in the scientific community accepts as reputable. It is not going to happen. Hopefully, we will have something that will give us something to talk about or peak some interest of some additional scientist who have not seriously considered the subject. If this was a slam dunk case like people were talking about it would not have taken so long. Remember 2011 was going to be the year of the Sasquatch. Now we are in 2012 and the paper has not even been submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) It may also be argued that since the claims of the paper are extraordinary, whatever journal is vetting the paper is taking the greatest pains meticulously to produce the paper. After all, the journal's reputation will also be at stake here, to a greater degree than with a less sensational topic. Edited February 4, 2012 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts