The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

^About 2 years I'd say, but that's the time from submitting to the journal to it actually showing up in print. I've spent the better part of today working on a manuscript that my student first prepared in 2009, but we haven't submitted it anywhere yet. Assuming we can get it published, that one might end up having taken 5 years from draft to journal. My longest from draft to publication was my own master's thesis paper: 10 years from draft to journal, but again, once I submitted it somewhere it was only about 2 years.

Of course, the best journals offer the perk of rapid publication times, rather than waiting for the quarterly, print-only journals with which I've traditionally worked.

[Guest]

PO,

As I recall, Newton is the first most (in the English-speaking world) think about as the developer of calculus, despite being beaten to the publication punch by three years by Leibniz, largely because of the appendix to one of his journal papers that sketched out his ideas on the subject, and that paper was published prior to Leibniz's publication. Then again, no journal at that time was peer reviewed, and the ideas presented in Principia are not inferior because they were presented in a book rather than in a journal (respected or not, peer reviewed or not).

You have a point about narcissism or something like it being what is meant by an inflated ego. Then again, I am not a psychologist, so I am using laymen's terminology. As to your hypothesis on schizotypy, I shall respond to that from my other account.

Pt

[Guest]

@Mulder: You seem really hung up on the training of the people involved in the evidence. The people aren't the problem, the evidence is.

[southernyahoo]

Thank you for confirming that publishing in an elite journal is not an essential element of the scientific method.

That may be true, however publishing in one that uses specialists in the affected field of study, does lend credence to the work. I'm surprised you would advocate the idea that this paper would have as much acceptance without it.

[Guest parnassus]

As someone who's both benefited from and been burned by peer review, I'm yet to see someone describe a better process for evaluating the merit of a submitted manuscript.

Has some of my great work been rejected by peer reviewers I thought were biased/clueless/malcontents doing science a disservice through their dissing service? Yep, but you have the same problem with a single editor or even a standard editorial board calling all the shots. I'd prefer to take my chances with reviewers selected specifically because they have some familiarity with the kind of work I've done.

Does peer review improve scientific quality? Well, every paper I've published is better than the draft originally submitted. In my lab, every grad student's thesis has been immensely improved through the input of committee members.

What do I know though? I must be brainwashed in my Ivory soap tower or some such nonsense.

My experience agrees with yours. The other part of the experience that you didn't mention is that going through peer review makes one a better reader/critic as well as a better investigator and writer. LOL "look at the all the flaws in this study that got published instead of ours!"

Another point I would emphasize: most published papers have something new to say. That is the reason for having journals, and the journals favor new stuff. Wouldn't you agree? The idea that journals don't want to publish new stuff is crazy. Scientists love new stuff. Especially if it opens up new doors for investigation.

p.

Edited April 9, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest BFSleuth]

I agree SY, it would seem to be an advantage for bigfootery in general to have the most respected possible journal for publication of a report like this. Ego aside, publishing in a journal that has a very rigorous peer review process lends credibility to the results.

Thank you Saskeptic for your personal history of your experience with the duration of your peer review process. That makes sense to me.

[Guest]

@ Peter O.

Nevertheless cognitive and/or perceptual distortions and delusions are inherent in the disorder you specify. I don't believe it is an appropriate analogue given the context..... perhaps you meant some other disorder.

bp,

In defense of PO, schizotypy refers to a continuum of personalty types range from the benign, thru the neurotic, to the pyschotic extremes. Just as narcissism refers to a similar continuum. For example, a benign form of schizotypy may be one who is prone to daydreaming; while most (other than cable TV channels that targetvwomen) regard someone with multiple personalities as at least somewhat malignant. An example with narcissism would be a person occasionally behaving in a mild arrogant way vs a sociopathic criminal.

I assume PO will correct me if I am wrong.

Pt

[indiefoot]

When was the last time anything comparable to a new large primate on the North American continent was announced in a scientific journal?

[Guest slimwitless]

Thank you for agreeing that it is obvious that the ego of the average academician is greater than that of the average McDonald's drive-thru worker. As such, there is no need to design and implement the experiment. See how much progress we can make when we agree!

It's all relative. I'm sure many drive-thru workers have bigger egos than the guys in back cleaning the fryers.

Where we seem to disagree is whether this has any relevance whatsoever in context of Melba Ketchum and her study.

[southernyahoo]

Another point I would emphasize: most published papers have something new to say. That is the reason for having journals, and the journals favor new stuff. Wouldn't you agree? The idea that journals don't want to publish new stuff is crazy. Scientists love new stuff. Especially if it opens up new doors for investigation.

Yeah, I imagine if a paper strongly proposes something new but also agrees with a generally accepted continuum like "all members of genus homo are extinct except for whom we call modern humans" you might be ok. But suppose your paper single handedly and wholely crushed that status quo? Is that just something new or a paradigm shift?

[bipedalist]

bp,

In defense of PO, schizotypy refers to a continuum of personalty types range from the benign, thru the neurotic, to the pyschotic extremes. Just as narcissism refers to a similar continuum. For example, a benign form of schizotypy may be one who is prone to daydreaming; while most (other than cable TV channels that targetvwomen) regard someone with multiple personalities as at least somewhat malignant. An example with narcissism would be a person occasionally behaving in a mild arrogant way vs a sociopathic criminal.

I assume PO will correct me if I am wrong.

Pt

I believe his post speaks for itself (.... these kinds of stereotypes are not forwarded for "mild effect" on the continuum or in their posting impact).

I believe it is misplaced verbiage as a result.

[Guest Peter O.]

Keep in mind that all this comes from someone who believes BF is probably a real animal. I base my guess on eyewitness accounts, the long historical timeline of eyewitness accounts, and physical evidence with a low likelihood for being faked, like long-distance footprints. I also have an interest in other strange phenomena, for the record.

Again, my comments were not referring to anyone or anything on this board, which is generally "above board" so to speak, but some of the people and their videos I've seen online, especially on the bigfootevidence.blogspot.com site.

@Pteronarcyd: Yes, I agree it is a continuum. That's why I said that that those people would "score high" on that dimension, rather than saying that they are this or that thing.

@bipedialist: "disorder" is a harsh term that I myself would almost never use, especially on Axis 2, and would be loath to use when discussing cases with "experts" in the field. Despite its pretensions, I don't consider psychology a "hard" science; it is not yet at a point when such an attribution could be made, and it may never be. And perhaps it shouldn't--psychology is dealing with "software" that no amount of understanding of the "hardware" may ever elucidate.

That being said, I think some individuals in the BF scene exhibit traits that are recognizable as schizotypal, and it makes me question their entire enterprise. If you were to read up on this trait, it would become easy to recognize it in others. Individuals who are high on the schizotypy scale would tend to interpret things as "supernatural" (for lack of a better word here, not the whole "supernatural bigfoot" thing, see below) rather than accepting more mundane interpretations. They are more likely to discard logical, Occam's razor type of explanations in favor of their own, more convoluted/less likely ones.

For example, someone who scans a video and claims to see a BF face, rather than just a pattern in the leaves.

I also class the whole idea of a "supernatural/transdimensional/alien" Bigfoot idea here, in the realm of absurdity. Above, I also mentioned Fasano, since he recently interpreted a bone he found as a juvenile skunk ape skull rather than another animal's pelvis. It doesn't help when the individual involved is not particularly intelligent.

As another, personal example, I have a friend who, though I would never say has a "disorder", tends to interpret mundane phenomena in a "supernatural" way. For example, she interprets a UFO she saw as an alien spacecraft rather than an unidentified flying object, and is likely to find more meaning in coincidence that the average person would.

Because of its qualities as para-science, I would think that Bigfootery would be a big magnet for such people, just like UFOs, ghosts, etc are. That's what I was saying, and I stand behind it.

Whoa, this is way off-thread now. Maybe it deserves (or doesn't deserve) it's own thread?

[Guest]

I'm yet to see someone describe a better process for evaluating the merit of a submitted manuscript.

If academics wish to use peer review, go for it. Just don't perpetuate the myths that there is no other legitimate way to publish, and that surviving peer review is a hallmark of quality.

Other than that, the logic is so pure that it floats.

It's all relative. I'm sure many drive-thru workers have bigger egos than the guys in back cleaning the fryers.

I specified a comparison of averages, not extremes. One can almost always find contrary diiference at the extremes of two populations (statistical, not biological, definition), but such differences are rarely of interest.

Where we seem to disagree is whether this has any relevance whatsoever in context of Melba Ketchum and her study.

I never commented on Ketchum's study, only her decision on where and how to publish and her odd public behavior in regard to her study.

PO,

For what it is worth, I realize you never accused anyone of having a disorder, and from your explanation I conclude you were not spewing any stereotype. Your point was rooted in your knowledge and observations, and per Forums rules I am honor bound to respect your opinion (however deluded it might be). Seriously, what you said makes sense to me.

You do realize, however, that if I were to claim to be Fasano you'd be toast.

Pt

But suppose your paper single handedly and wholely crushed that status quo? Is that just something new or a paradigm shift?

It is exactly this situation that anonymous peer review handles poorly.

That may be true, however publishing in one that uses specialists in the affected field of study, does lend credence to the work. I'm surprised you would advocate the idea that this paper would have as much acceptance without it.

You've heard of guilt by association? I believe the association fallacy works in the other direction, too -- i.e., it is illogical to assume that a paper is good just because it is published in a good journal. I've never been big about judging a book by its cover. As to journal articles, the only two times I'm interested in knowing where it was published is when I am looking for them and when I am citing them.

Ketchum is free to choose where and how she wants to publish, and when, where, and what she wants to disclose about her study, but if she has selected the slow track and imposed a zone of silence about her, then she can expect criticism when she undertakes a PR campaign, and keeps making broken promises.

[Guest RayG]

PT, when you say 'other legitimate way to publish', what exactly are you referring to?

RayG

[Guest]

What promise has she broken?