chelefoot Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Nat Geo is not a peer reviewed publication...is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 My top two picks would be Nature and Science, Nature being the one who according to rumor handed it back. Well, that would be excellent news. Anyone know when these two next publish? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest craichead Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) Nat Geo is not a peer reviewed publication...is it? Not sure how it would be considered. Has she stated explicitly that it's that type of journal? Also if you look back to RL's posts, it says she's working with Nat Geo. Edited July 17, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove unallowed link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) Yes, I would say she has explicitly stated that she will only publish with a peer reviewed journal. Melba Ketchum ‎ I do not care about it, I do care about the quality and completeness of the data. If I just wanted to be first, I would have tried it in the media because I have more than enough to do that and have had ample opportunity to go to the media with it. I could have taken any of a bunch of documentary offers and some news channels and book offers also. But, I want them protected and to do that, it has to be accepted in mainstream science which is the goal. I could have had it out last year if I just wanted the media attention and to try to make a pile of money. Don't care what people think or when it comes out as long as it is correct and done properly. I hope that is abundantly clear. July 10 at 7:55am · Edit... attempting to link this rather than copy/paste it...I don't know how! Edited July 15, 2012 by chelefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Hmmmm. I'm almost certain David Paulides had some say on how it was going to be handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Here's a list of science journals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals Which ones do you guys think are relevant to Dr Ketchums study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) I've been speculating about this too and I was thinking Nature at first too, but to my knowledge Dr Ketcham has flatly stated that it's neither of those. I suppose that could be untrue, but I think she wouldn't have answered so explicity if it was one of them. She could have just as easily refrained from commenting. She said the paper *is* not at Nature Group. That would technically be true if she said it after the paper was handed back but before it was resubmitted. Judging from the rumors, that's exactly when she made that post (November 2011, if I'm not mistaken). BTW, this is pure conjecture. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if Indiefoot is right. Edited July 15, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Well, that would be excellent news. Anyone know when these two next publish? Mike Nature publishes weekly. Not sure about Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 When you say "handed it back" I am assuming that you mean it was summarily rejected, is that true? Excluding Nature and Science, as those are the 2 best known Scientific Journals, if you take the next one in line in terms of number of readers, how many people (lay and scientific) would actually SEE the article in this journal when it's published? Include the physical journal and the online presence of the journal. Would you think it would be over 10,000? I'm trying to get an idea of how many sets of eyes are actually going to read this article if and when it's published. Also a lot of posts are speaking as though it's a DONE DEAL and the only thing now is finding out when it's published. Not saying this is false information, but do we KNOW this for sure? I mean has it came from the Horses Mouth, so to speak, verifying it to be so? Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I have been off the grid for over a week and I need a little catch up on this topic. There seems to be an increased optimism about the paper over the last week. The discussion again has gone to "which journal" with minor journals not being discussed. The assumption being that the paper has been accepted for publication by a major journal and soon we will be reading about on major news outlets. Again, I don't see where it has been confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. Can someone confirm that the paper has been accepted for publication? If not, we are in the same exact position that we were almost a year ago when this thread was started. Can someone explain to me where the increased optimism arises? I could not find it in reading a weeks worth of posts on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 info from linda sedlak on FB and a post from indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) When you say "handed it back" I am assuming that you mean it was summarily rejected, is that true? The rumor first surfaced in comments by Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO. I believe he specifically said the paper wasn't rejected but rather "handed back" for having no "testable hypothesis". Indefoot says he heard the same from his connected source a few posts back (although he doesn't know if the journal in question is Nature). I assume, if true, that "handed back" means the paper never made it to peer review on that first submission. Edited July 15, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 ^Which is, if true, an entirely BS reason to reject such a paper. A descriptive paper HAS no "testable hypothesis". None is needed. It is a report of lab results obtained from standard testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I hear the peer review is finished now, plus Dr. Ketchum recently made plans for cooking "So busy but decided life is too short not to do what I love so it is back to the kitchen for what time I have before the craziness of this project explodes! Yum! Who knows, maybe I will try the next Food Network Star next year (just teasing...too much of a mad scientist in the kitchen, would do better on Chopped for those of you Food Network fans) LOL." - Dr. Melba Ketchum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 When you say "handed it back" I am assuming that you mean it was summarily rejected, is that true? Excluding Nature and Science, as those are the 2 best known Scientific Journals, if you take the next one in line in terms of number of readers, how many people (lay and scientific) would actually SEE the article in this journal when it's published? Include the physical journal and the online presence of the journal. Would you think it would be over 10,000? I'm trying to get an idea of how many sets of eyes are actually going to read this article if and when it's published. Also a lot of posts are speaking as though it's a DONE DEAL and the only thing now is finding out when it's published. Not saying this is false information, but do we KNOW this for sure? I mean has it came from the Horses Mouth, so to speak, verifying it to be so? Nalajr No, I meant "handed it back".... not sure what that means. I don't know about Linda but I got my information in an email from Dr. Ketchum, I spoke to her on the phone last year and she explained some things in laymens terms, but I know that they have recieved the data from more in-depth testing since our conversation. I have just just been waiting for the release so everyone can get past discovery and on to study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts