Hairy Man Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 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, Wait..these are your numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) 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." Might want to check your analogy...that would be 62.5 orders/hour (assuming an 8 hour day)...that would be VERY impressive. It i No one has confirmed that this has "not" occurred. Argument from ignorancefallacy. The fact is the paper has not been published yet and likely has not been accepted for publication Proof? Evidence, even? What, they should treat her with kid gloves because it's bigfoot? RayG No. But neither should they make it more difficult for her than they would any other presenter based on topic, which is what I suspect is happening. Edited April 11, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Mulder, you really think that's what is happening? She's being scrutinized because it's the subject matter is of an "unknown"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Only problem with that logic Mulder is the constant FB updates promising that the findings will be released *soon*. So if anyone has made things more difficult for themselves it is her. Folks read the FB *promises*, and when they aren't released in their personal version of *soon* then they begin asking more pointed questions. I'm *hoping* but not *trusting* that Dr. K has something really cool to release. I'm not nearly as negative as some are but will cede that I've gotten my hopes up before only to be disappointed. I think we should be patient and realize that there is more involved in this than many understand. But dang, those FB postings only serve to add to the skepticism in regards to the delay. And, any honest proponent would realize that our eyes are sort of blackened over recent *breaking* news like the *Ga. Boys Hoax and Enoch debacle* that hasn't gone our way. I want to believe that she has something conclusive/semi-conclusive in favor of the subject, but if I'm honest, I'm not really counting on it. Been burned too many times in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Mulder, you really think that's what is happening? She's being scrutinized because it's the subject matter is of an "unknown"? A highly controversial unknown. I don't doubt that some people would want to keep it that way, but you can't stop science once it smells the truth. Looking forward to a time when we can just kick back and enjoy knowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Was her paper returned after examination by peers or was it not accepted for review by the editors before being seen by reviewers? I do not know. Were her statements of impending publication before or after it had been accepted by another(second) journal and reviewed by her peers? I do not know. What I do know is that she made several pronouncements about the impending publication months ago. In my experience as an author, you simply do not do that. You make no pronouncement that a paper will be published until you have a letter in your possession from a journal editor that begins with the word "Congratulations." In that letter, you also have some fairly specific information concerning when a paper will be published - remember, that's a really important thing to people working on tenure and promotion. So that letter often includes statements like "the manuscript will be included in Volume 144." At a broad scale, you can deduce (if not told explicitly) that your paper will be published "next year"; more specifically you should know if your paper will be included in the March, July, September, or December issue, for quarterly publications. If the journal is one that publishes more frequently like Science or Nature, I'd assume that the authors are instructed as to when the work would appear online even if the print appearance might be hard to pin down to a specific week or month. If memory serves, I first saw pronouncements from Dr. Ketchum in August. She shouldn't have been making such statements without confirmation from the editor that her work was accepted and some idea of when it would be available. The fact that December - and now March - have come and gone lead me to believe that she was irresponsibly making those pronouncements, i.e., her pronouncements were premature predictions of publication. She was talking about publication timeline before it was established that the work would be published at all. This makes red flags wave that Dr. Ketchum is (at least relatively) inexperienced in scientific publication, which is actually what you'd predict given her background and career. Her education and her day job focus on providing medical care to working animals and pets, not reconstructing hominid phylogenies and describing new species in the scientific literature. So as an outsider who knows what publishing involves, I suspect that Dr. Ketchum is in way over her head with something that's far more complicated that at first realized. The cynic in me has other less charitable suspicions about this story. ETA (for Mulder's benefit): I want to be clear that I'm not saying Ketchum lacks the qualifications to bring this analysis to light, I'm saying that her inexperience has led her to conclude that she has something that she really doesn't. I agree with SY's "can't stop science once it smells the truth" statement. I just don't think the smell we're getting from this is the truth. Edited April 11, 2012 by Saskeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 In other words you are branding her as "scientifically unprofessional" on a number of assumptions and suspicions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 It seems clear to me that Saskeptic is giving his opinion based on Dr. Ketchum's own words with regards to his own considerable experience and not just on assumptions and suspicions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 ^Yes, I am a boorish, pig-headed, prejudiced jerk who will stop at nothing to assassinate the character of anyone who dares attempt to analyze alleged bigfoot evidence. Were it not for me and my colleagues among the squatchilluminati, there might have been a bigfoot on display when the AMNH opened the doors of Akeley Hall in 1936! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I wouldn't say Saskeptic is in the wrong in any way. I believe others who know Ketchum have stated that in the beginning of the study, as she was pulling people in to assist, they too noticed quite a few noobish mistakes when trying to put a paper together. This comment is not intended to discredit her, or suggest that there is not a paper, but to suggest that perhaps it was her lack of skill at putting a paper together that caused her to reach out to others for assistance, hence her public announcement mistake. I believe she has something put together, otherwise she wouldn't be risking her professional career and reputation on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I just don't think the smell we're getting from this is the truth. ^ Says the ecologist to the genticist who's opinion is that the data is overwhelming. There must be something anomolous and repeatable in it, or I'm sure she would be getting an ear full from her PHD coauthors and reviewing peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 We don't even know if the paper mentions the word 'bigfoot' or 'sasquatch' The paper might be entitled "Unknown Primate DNA From Various Locales in North America" The paper may simply be a paper documenting the procedures used to identify or categorize the unknown DNA. Has anyone verified that the paper broaches the Bigfoot subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I just don't think the smell we're getting from this is the truth. ^ Says the ecologist to the genticist who's opinion is that the data is overwhelming. There must be something anomolous and repeatable in it, or I'm sure she would be getting an ear full from her PHD coauthors and reviewing peers. I have not seen who the co-authors are so can you please provide the names and qualifications of them or where I can get them? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 It's possible Drew, that the Data is suppose to leave us with no other conclusion so as not having to actually say it. If bigfoot were to actually be recognised, we would probably give it a more scientific name anyways. I have not seen who the co-authors are so can you please provide the names and qualifications of them or where I can get them? Thank you. You'll get that with the paper, and it's conclusions, when it matters. Not that I have them written down or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 ^Yes, I am a boorish, pig-headed, prejudiced jerk who will stop at nothing to assassinate the character of anyone who dares attempt to analyze alleged bigfoot evidence. Were it not for me and my colleagues among the squatchilluminati, there might have been a bigfoot on display when the AMNH opened the doors of Akeley Hall in 1936! about time you fessed up ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts