TimB Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 So we can also read the excuses, each one more fantastic than the last, as to why it's taking so long. Nalajr I am intrigued by your argument. Can you verify this by showing the progression of fantastic claims on this thread? I'd sure like to see that verified! Thanks for the great discussion!!! Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 So we can pretend our opinion means anything at all to Dr Ketchum, or the general public, or the scientific community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 We need to keep this thread open so people can keep repeating their opinion that Ketchum's study isn't in peer review over and over again. Tim B. Considering the lack of evidence, I think its a pretty accurate opinion, Unless you can prove otherwise. I'm all ears. Please show me where it has been confirmed that a paper has even been submitted to any journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 What confirmation would you accept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) I am intrigued by your argument. Can you verify this by showing the progression of fantastic claims on this thread? I'd sure like to see that verified! Thanks for the great discussion!!! Tim B. Are you not able to recognize a JOKE when you see one? Would it be better if before I post something that's funny or a joke, I post a DISCLAIMER at the top of it? JEEZ. Nalajr Edited September 4, 2012 by Nalajr .....breech of rule 3A removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Skeptics seem to generally want a "confirmation" of some sort for this kind of stuff. The only confirmation they will accept is the media spoonfeeding them the big news telling them Bigfoot is real and it exists, but that won't happen until it's published and out! Right now the only confirmation we get is from people like David Paulides, Adrian Erickson, Derek Randles, Rhettman Mullis ect. Verbally telling us it's happening. Edited September 4, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 What confirmation would you accept? I would accept a statement from Ketchum herself that she has in fact submitted a paper, name of the journal(s) it was submitted to, and what the current state of the paper is at this time. I don't believe for a minute that a journal embargo is the reason why this simple information can't be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 ^^Me too, but alas that day will never come. I'll thaw the crow out if it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I would accept a statement from Ketchum herself that she has in fact submitted a paper, name of the journal(s) it was submitted to, and what the current state of the paper is at this time. I don't believe for a minute that a journal embargo is the reason why this simple information can't be released. That is all of the confirmation that I would need. However, Ketchum has refused or is "unable" (if you buy the embargo argument) to make such a simple and strait forward statement. As far as I know, she has never confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. Until I hear a statement from her otherwise, I am operating under the assumption that the paper has not been accepted for publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Dr. John Hawks goes on speaking tours talking specifically about the papers he is working on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 How many message boards is he accountable to, Drew? And what exactly is his line of study? I'm unfamiliar with him. Tim Are you not able to recognize a JOKE when you see one? Would it be better if before I post something that's funny or a joke, I post a DISCLAIMER at the top of it? JEEZ. Nalajr Sorry man- I have been trained to look for humor to identify jokes. I'll try your way next time. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 There is confirmation lawyers are involved with multiple parties involved. I don't see how folks have a problem understanding why speaking about a subject of this magnitude would be held under lock and key through the NDA's that were drafted by lawyers and signed by the participants. Folks keep mentioning an embargo and how they haven't heard of a journal with such a tight embargo. Well folks, the embargo may not be driving this silence. Speaking at conferences, releasing the journal name, etc...ALL things that easily could be incorporated into an NDA. Seems to me that those that have actually SEEN an NDA regarding this paper are doing what they signed up to do. Not talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 So we can also read the excuses, each one more fantastic than the last, as to why it's taking so long. Nalajr \There is another study that claims the same reasons for witholding results until publication. Sykes is no joke! Do you think he's just taking a cue from Melba on non-disclosure or is it a valid Journal policy? http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/academic/GBFs-v/OLCHP PUBLICATION PHASEResults from DNA analysis will be prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed science journal. No results will be released until any embargoes on publication have passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 As an example here's the lead paragraph from the embargo policy of the journal Nature: "Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken." If anyone can find a policy that is remarkably different than this one I'd be interested to see it. Note that if an author violates the embargo then publication of the paper can be halted. I don't think the policy is ambiguous. I'm curious about the idea that has been put forward from the experience of Saskeptic et al that note they have either made presentations or heard presentations by scientists about their papers in science conferences. How might this be viewed in terms of an embargo? It would seem that scientists hearing such a presentation could easily "spill the beans" to media or post on public forums, which would seem to violate the embargo. Is it the case that the embargo policy is there but not completely enforced by most journals? I'm confused about this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted September 4, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted September 4, 2012 I don't see how folks have a problem understanding why speaking about a subject of this magnitude would be held under lock and key through the NDA's that were drafted by lawyers and signed by the participants. It's because of the wonderful traits of impatience and selfishness.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts