southernyahoo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Right now, I'm going with the opinion that everything is going as planned, and all involved are agressively covering their butts because none can afford to get this wrong. The reality is just so huge on one hand and so terribly controversial on the other, that you only get one shot at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have a question along these lines for anyone with experience publishing peer reviewed papers. It requires an assumption. IF we assume that the paper is with a journal, and that this delay has been caused by multiple requests for corrections/re-writes, what are the chances of it going on this long and still being rejected? There seems to be some indication from both Lindsay's leaks and from the veiled frustration from Dr.Ketchum on her FB page that there have been a number of requests for changes or re-writes, and according to Lindsey, they became quite minor at the end, as if the journal wanted to make absolutely sure the paper was air tight. IF the above is true (I know that is a big IF), what are the chances that it could still be fully rejected. Logically, it would seem to me that if indeed it is at a stage where further small edits and rewrites are being requested, that it would be far past the point of being outright rejected. But, do papers ever get far along in the process, only to, in the end, get the boot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Well put, Cotter. Perhaps a parallel can be found in the publishing world at large. Ten years ago, we all dismissed bloggers as falling hopelessly outside of legitimate journalism because they were self-publishing their work instead of being "good enough" to pass muster with newspapers or magazines; now, they wield great influence, because their content is judged on its own merits. Likewise, in terms of books, authors who did not find approval by the gate-keepers of traditional publishing houses were long conisidered inferior. Increasingly, though, writers have learned that they can connect directly with readers, and that the quality of their work can be judged on its own merits rather than by systemically appointed judges. I'm sure that science lags behind this forward movement, but in the digital/internet age, even this realm is sure to come along, so that the limited fiefdoms of journals and pannels cannot continue to exercise disproportionate leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Maybe, but I would think if there was money to be made, as in a book deal, that will happen. Book deal, movie rights, clothing line, guest spot on Ellen ? Yeah umm... not sure that is quite what we all were hoping for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) delete Edited June 28, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 That's my thinking. I can't imagine it getting this far and them pulling the rug out. In that sense, I seen the excessive delay as a sign that it will get published. That is mostly because I take Dr. Ketchum and Ms. Ramey at their word that the reason they are being so circumspect is because of the Journal's requirements. If it weren't with a journal, or not at the same journal anymore, I would hope that they would give us that info. If it is still with the Journal, than I can't imagine it would be rejected after so long a process. But, again, my expertise in this area is precisely Zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have a question along these lines for anyone with experience publishing peer reviewed papers. It requires an assumption. IF we assume that the paper is with a journal, and that this delay has been caused by multiple requests for corrections/re-writes, what are the chances of it going on this long and still being rejected? There seems to be some indication from both Lindsay's leaks and from the veiled frustration from Dr.Ketchum on her FB page that there have been a number of requests for changes or re-writes, and according to Lindsey, they became quite minor at the end, as if the journal wanted to make absolutely sure the paper was air tight. IF the above is true (I know that is a big IF), what are the chances that it could still be fully rejected. Logically, it would seem to me that if indeed it is at a stage where further small edits and rewrites are being requested, that it would be far past the point of being outright rejected. But, do papers ever get far along in the process, only to, in the end, get the boot? Thats a good question. It would seem to me that the question of whether there is favorable data to warrant publication would have been settled early on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 After all the hype? Absolutely for me. Ketchum herself can't be blamed for the hype. Leaks occurred, yes, but all the hype can be blamed on threads like this. WE are the ones doing the hyping, not her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 She's done her share of cultivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ^ That's true. But I can't help but notice how it seems to be ratcheting back in the last couple of weeks, other than a couple of cryptic comments that things are "on track". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have a good source, the paper has recently been handed back to the journal with what are hoped to be the last revisions. That doesn't mean something couldn't still come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Boy, that would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 ^ That's true. But I can't help but notice how it seems to be ratcheting back in the last couple of weeks, other than a couple of cryptic comments that things are "on track". But it's those exact "cryptic comments" that contribute to the rabidity (is that even a word??) of this whole thing.... And, you can't take back what's already put out there. That's like saying to a jury to disregard an intentionally dramatic comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Over a year ago, the Oregan Bigfoot page indicated the paper was finished and was very near publication. It was also in peer review. I think it is safe now to assume that the paper failed whatever peer review was going on at that time and that the paper was rejected. I assume that the paper was then submitted to other papers and again failed peer review. No one has ever confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. The fact that the paper has likely failed at least one and possible two or three peer reviews will have an effect on the credibility whether deserved or not. My best guess is that we will see some type of self publication. I predict sooner rather than later as it appears that all attempts at publication in a peer review journal has been exhausted. This of course is all conjecture and only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 ^ Assuming that the paper must have gone through multiple submissions and rejections with multiple journals, in absence of evidence of such, seems to be a stretch. But it's those exact "cryptic comments" that contribute to the rabidity (is that even a word??) of this whole thing.... And, you can't take back what's already put out there. That's like saying to a jury to disregard an intentionally dramatic comment. The only jury that makes a difference in this whole scenario are the editors and peer reviewers. Hopefully indiefoot has good information and the reduction in chatter signals something imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts