Jump to content
Guest

The Ketchum Report

Recommended Posts

gershake

Saskeptic, The. In press. Looking for bigfoot in all the wrong places: new insights into the habitat requirements of North America's cryptic hominin. Nature.

Hahahaha, plussed for humour. :D

Saskeptic, can I just reiterate that you are one of my favourite posters here :)

- Shake, bigfoot proponent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

@Sas, in your experience, prior to acceptance, you typically do NOT acknowledge the journal, correct?

Do you speak about embargo without naming the journal?

Thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Once I hear from the journal that my paper has been accepted, I not only name the journal, I trumpet that name from the rooftops.

By "accepted" you mean that the journal has confirmed that it will be published and a publication date is given? On the other hand if you mean that it is accepted for peer review but hasn't yet been processed through peer review would you be trumpeting the fact from the rooftops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I do the same regarding publications regarding placing on my CV as In press or accepted . In fact we often tell colleagues where we have submitted prior to acceptance or even where we are thinking of submitting prior to said submission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

I'm assuming the "trumpeting" part comes after acceptance though? It would be embarrassing to have to update your CV if it ultimately is rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nalajr

There was an announcement from probably one of the most pretigious universities in the world, Cambridge, looking for samples of Sassy hair to test to see if it's real. The researcher at the head of the project talked about his desire to look into this phenomenon. He said the testing would take a month and results would come in quickly and THEN the details would be published in a suitable jounal.

That begs the question on whether they have SUPER-T-DUPER DNA testing equipment and Ketchum has the Wal-Mart version. I digress though. Lets suppose that the team in England received 10 legitimate samples and then tested them. Is there anyone on here that would really believe that at the conclusion of those tests, when the results were in, that the scientists involved would tell the world "OK, we've got some really good stuff, trust us, unfortunately we are under an embargo and we cannot mention A SINGLE WORD about our findings and it'll take 2 to 3 years, but we'll let you see our findings soon enough as we have peer review and NDA's that we have to obey. Please bear with us during this time as we know you all are excited and we are too.

Does that even sound plausible to you? If they came out and said that, the collective press would laugh in their faces for the absurdity of it all....and they should.

Nalajr

It's funny how you all have said forever that no one tells anything about the journal they are working with until their article is published. Then you have not one, but TWO scientists come in and tell you that NO, that isn't the way things go, that they TRUMPET the name of the journal they SUBMITTED to and add it to their CV's.

Well that doesn't fit the narrative so then you have to nit pick and parse every word they say to justify what Ketchum has done for 3 years.

Isn't there a point when you all say "this is enough, either put it up or shut it up?" How many excuses are you all willing to tolerate and for how long? Another year, how about 2? Will you still be saying it is absolutely correct for Ketchum to not reveal a single detail because it's out for peer review?

Nalajr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeG

Wrong University, Nalajr, and small wars have started over lesser slips than that!! Oxford was the institution that you were clutching for....... That's like saying Harvard when you actually meant Yale.

We have a thread running called the Meldrum/ Sykes report, which discusses this in depth.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nalajr

Difference without much of a distinction. Just like Harvard and Yale.

Nalajr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FuriousGeorge

lol I beg your pardon? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeG

Classic!!

OK, let me put it another way. Confusing Oxford and Cambridge is like getting mixed up between the USA and Canada. Both are North American countries where the inhabitants have a funny accent. Easy mistake to make.........

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

If there is any truth to the statement that the Sykes study will give results quickly, then it begs the question of whether there will be a paper, or how it can be guaranteed to be published quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nalajr

Classic!!

OK, let me put it another way. Confusing Oxford and Cambridge is like getting mixed up between the USA and Canada. Both are North American countries where the inhabitants have a funny accent. Easy mistake to make.........

Mike

How about dealing with the point I made instead of this banter about the correct university as though mistaking Cambridge for Oxford is akin to mistaking Northwest Idaho Tech with M.I.T.

OK, I mistakenly named Cambirdge....woo, big deal. Deal with the issue I raise.

Nalajr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wrong University, Nalajr, and small wars have started over lesser slips than that!! Oxford was the institution that you were clutching for....... That's like saying Harvard when you actually meant Yale.

We have a thread running called the Meldrum/ Sykes report, which discusses this in depth.

Mike

Wrong Oxford, Mike... :D

If there is any truth to the statement that the Sykes study will give results quickly, then it begs the question of whether there will be a paper, or how it can be guaranteed to be published quickly.

Depends, southern...he may have samples already in process and simply be looking for more. This study may have been quietly gearing up for months and months already. Or he may not have samples, but knows a number of people who do who for whatever reason didn't want to give them to Ketchum.

Just lisiting possibilities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well the issue I would raise is that you are exaggerating how long it has taken. Where do you get 3 years? Smeja's sample wasn't submitted until late 2010 or early 2011. If samples were still being accepted at that point, the paper obviously would be undergoing revisions. It's hardly 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The categories I might use on my CV are "submitted," "in review," "accepted," and "in press."

I would never use the term "accepted" to mean "in review." "Accepted" means that I am the proud owner of a letter that tells me that the journal intends to publish my paper. "In press" means that I've already approved the galley proofs of the paper, I've paid the page charges, and I know in what issue my paper will appear. Prior to this thread, I'd never heard of an "embargo" stipulating to an author that s/he was forbidden from sharing the name of the journal to which a manuscript had been submitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...