Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 ^Thanks Cotter, but remember that those things that I listed are fairly typical of anyone who has my job - which is to do those things every day. In comparison to a lot of my colleagues at similar institutions I'm way underpublished, and I've never even tried to get anything into Science or Nature. I guess the point is that a list of my accomplishments given my position is no more impressive than our McD's drive-through operator saying "I filled 500 orders today." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 It is true that Dr. Ketchum has made no firm commitments as to the publication date of the alleged paper. She has confirmed that the paper will be published. There have been many claims/rumors/leaks from various sources advising that the publication was imminent. there have been claim/rumors/leaks that the paper had been accepted for publication. There been claims that Dr. Ketchum was flown to Europe to talk to reviewers about the soon-to-be published paper. As of this date, all of these claims/rumors/leaks have been patently false. The question I have is where are these claims/rumors/leaks coming from all of which seem to indicate that her paper will "prove" and the existence of Bigfoot. I think Dr. Ketchum's statement was something to the effect that the evidence in her paper would be such that "it would have to accepted." However, as we stand today, no one can even confirm that the paper has been accepted for publication. Therefore, it is certainly possible that the paper has been submitted for publication and then summarily rejected. No one has confirmed that this has "not" occurred. The fact is the paper has not been published and likely has not been accepted for publication. When this thread hit 100 pages, I predicted it would hit 150 before publication. It looks like my prediction is going to come true. I am not predicting that this thread will reach 200 pages before publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Blame RL and even more his sources. That's why this thread is so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Again, my criticisms of Ketchum's project have nothing to do with any perceived delay in publication. My criticisms have focused on her own pronouncements of impending publication when clearly the work had not survived peer review. Such statements are inconsistent with a professional scientist, and caused me to suspect that she might be in over her head with publication of such monumental work, or worse - potentially drawn in by others into something less savory. So I don't care "how long it's taking." If there's ever an awesome publication that comes from this I'd be thrilled! Saskeptic, I think you may have missed these questions. Was her paper returned after examination by peers or was it not accepted for review by the editors before being seen by reviewers? Were her statements of impending publication before or after it had been accepted by another(second) journal and reviewed by her peers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I'm battling to see how anyone could answer those questions, Indiefoot. Those who know the answers are subject to NDAs, and those who aren't subject to NDAs aren't going to know the answer. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Saskeptic, I think you may have missed these questions. Was her paper returned after examination by peers or was it not accepted for review by the editors before being seen by reviewers? Were her statements of impending publication before or after it had been accepted by another(second) journal and reviewed by her peers? I think Saskeptic was guessing based on the fact he hasn't seen the published paper, and subsequent postings from Dr. Ketchum indicating she doesn't have a publish date. My criticisms have focused on her own pronouncements of impending publication when clearly the work had not survived peer review. The above statement could be interpreted to mean it was rejected (which he wouldn't know) or that he thinks the paper is still in review or some other pre-publication state of preparation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Ive always heard "the proof is in the pudding". Made me think of this. (WARNING!! IT HAS A WORD SOMETIMES USED TO DESCRIBE A CHILD BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK... YOU KNOw, BAS....) RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) @Sas and Parn: You've probably addressed this in other thread, so I apologize for the repost. How many papers have you published? How many have you attempted to publish? In what fields? I'm trying to gauge your experience level with the process. I guess the question goes out to all members who have been through the publishing/peer review process. Thanks all. First author on peer reviewed papers: 2 contributing author on peer reviewed papers: 12 first author on non peer reviewed papers: 3 contributing author on non peer reviewed papers: 1 textbook chapters: 1 book: 1 (non-science) My time was always divided between research and other work. p, Edited April 10, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I read a book once that kinda sorta had some scientific stuff in it. I used to do secret squirrel stuff in the military, does that count? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Squirrel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 When I think SQUIRREL!!! I think this: Love that scene. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Made me think of this. (WARNING!! IT HAS A WORD SOMETIMES USED TO DESCRIBE A CHILD BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK... YOU KNOw, BAS....) RayG That was worth a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I can't help but wonder if the reviewers are trying to "Colombo" the paper to death (as in "Oh, by the way Dr Ketchum...just one more thing..."). Every time she responds to the requests for re-write, they come up with some other nit-picky thing they want fixed, turning publication into an endurance contest, looking to see how long it takes before she gets fed up and withdraws the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 What, they should treat her with kid gloves because it's bigfoot? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the initial report was submitted by Dr. Ketchum et al sometime about one year ago or possibly a little longer? Not sure we need to be conjecturing regarding greater than usual peer review procedures just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts