The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Mulder wrote:

"It is simply amazing how we keep coming back to this..."

...and this is Dr. Ketchum's baby after all. She can run this thing any darn way she chooses - aborted facebook page, protection group, you name it. Its her name that's attached to this story and her reputation that will live or die based on the outcome - at least among the tiny minority who frequent bigfoot forums that is. I don't know how this thing is going to pan out but it surely takes a whole lot of spheres to ride the thing out and have one's name forever attached to it.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Yeah, it just kind of struck me today that we've been running like hampsters on a wheel over this question, why not just go to the source and ask the question? And yes, perhaps we can lay to rest the questioning of a fellow member's honesty, integrity, or truthfulness for not confirming anything about the status of her paper other than to simply note:

• There is a paper
  
• It is in process
  
• Publication is expected "soon"
  

Other than that, and it begs asking the journal to throw out the paper.

Note that they confirmed it is acceptable to confer with other scientists in a non-public forum.

[Guest]

+1, well done Sleuth.

[Guest gershake]

+1 from me too.

[Guest]

It looks just like this guy I seen down the post office. Definitely human.

[Guest RayG]

By the way, did you read the links in my post 7546 regarding the policies of the journal Nature? Which part of the embargo policy do you think would allow Dr. Ketchum to release the information you are requesting?

The embargo policy you refer to deals with communication with the media. Newspapers, TV news, that sort of thing.

But Nature allows 'pre-publicity' of a work that has been submitted to them

Here's a snippet:

>>>

Our policy on the posting of particular versions of the manuscript is as follows:

1. You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process).

2. The accepted version of the manuscript, following the review process, may only be posted 6 months after the paper is published in a Nature journal. A publication reference and URL to the published version on the journal website must be provided on the first page of the postprint.

3. The published version — copyedited and in Nature journal format — may not be posted on any website or preprint server.<<<

Notice how they refer to three different versions of the manuscript, and how the pre-submission version is allowed to be posted on a blog, wiki, or preprint server AT ANY TIME. [my bolding/emphasis]

Notice too, how the three versions have different limitations. So, as pointed out many many months ago, the publication of a pre-submission version would be acceptable and allowed by Nature. That's when there was much clucking and clacking about NDAs.

RayG

[Guest]

^NDAs are a seperate thing from the Embargo Ray. You know that.

[Guest RayG]

The mention of embargoes is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether pre-submission versions can be released in a blog, wiki, or on a preprint server. The revelation that pre-admission publication was allowed by Nature, quickly led to objections being raised about NDAs, which again has nothing to do with embargoes. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

And yet here we are, at this late stage of the game, with a reference and a link to an embargo that doesn't apply.

RayG

Edited September 6, 2012 by RayG

[Guest Particle Noun]

Ray, did you read the post from BFSleuth in which he emailed Nature to ask about an author confirming that a journal is with Nature? And the part where they confirmed that the author should NOT CONFIRM that the paper is with Nature?

Why would an author of something as highly contentious as this publish a pre-submission version? Espeically when that author has stated on numerous occasions that as the study went on, their thinking and interpretations changed drastically?

Is this really that complicated? I think BFSleuth has pretty much nailed this one.

[Guest]

Rather than run around in circles arguing about how the embargo policies are interpreted by a journal such as Nature I decided to check for myself. I sent an e-mail:

"I read through the policy statement and it didn't seem to preclude confirming that a paper has been submitted or under peer review. If I submit a paper is it permissible to confirm with media that I have a paper in submission and if it does get into peer review is it allowed to confirm that fact as long as I don't discuss the contents of the paper?"

The reply I received:

"We ask that you not discuss your papers submitted for consideration as the review process is confidential. Though you are encouraged to discuss your work with fellow scientists and at conferences, our policy is that you not discuss any work submitted to Nature with journalists. As such, confirming that a paper has been submitted or is under review would mean discussing the work, which is counter to our policy."

Hopefully this can lay to rest the issue of, "OH MY GOSH, WHY WON'T SHE AT LEAST CONFIRM!????"

Take a breath.

Thanks BFs, I appreciate your efforts

The embargo policy you refer to deals with communication with the media. Newspapers, TV news, that sort of thing.

But Nature allows 'pre-publicity' of a work that has been submitted to them

Here's a snippet:

>>>

Our policy on the posting of particular versions of the manuscript is as follows:

1. You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process).

2. The accepted version of the manuscript, following the review process, may only be posted 6 months after the paper is published in a Nature journal. A publication reference and URL to the published version on the journal website must be provided on the first page of the postprint.

3. The published version — copyedited and in Nature journal format — may not be posted on any website or preprint server.<<<

Notice how they refer to three different versions of the manuscript, and how the pre-submission version is allowed to be posted on a blog, wiki, or preprint server AT ANY TIME. [my bolding/emphasis]

Notice too, how the three versions have different limitations. So, as pointed out many many months ago, the publication of a pre-submission version would be acceptable and allowed by Nature. That's when there was much clucking and clacking about NDAs.

RayG

This was the next thing I was going to bring up, but Ray beat me to it. Edited September 13, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC
Removed double quote box

[bipedalist]

...Why would an author of something as highly contentious as this publish a pre-submission version? Espeically when that author has stated on numerous occasions that as the study went on, their thinking and interpretations changed drastically?

....

Why? Because maybe they wished to integrate some level of additional peer review into some questions unsolved or some methods/testing that might be novel---before the big unveil. Refinement, if you will.

Perhaps the Sykes-Sartori study will be more consistent in this regard as projected?

But in the end it was probably to keep legal wrangling at a minimum involving the method, presentation and unveiling of the data and the manner in packaging it, if several high ranking postings from this forum have validity.

Edited September 6, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest RayG]

Ray, did you read the post from BFSleuth in which he emailed Nature to ask about an author confirming that a journal is with Nature?

Yes, but what you just said is not what he asked. He specifically asked, and I quote:

"If I submit a paper is it permissible to confirm with media that I have a paper in submission..."

I thought I addressed that when I said:

"The embargo policy you refer to deals with communication with the media".

Now it could very well be that I'm mistaken, but since Nature has a specific page dealing with communication with the media, I'm not surprised that the response was no, when the question asked was whether it was permissible to confirm with media, not whether a pre-submission version could be published.

The proper question should have been, "Can an author publish a pre-submission version on a blog, wiki, or preprint server, as per the instructions indicate here?"

RayG

[Guest Particle Noun]

I think that is parsing. This is not a scientific board. There are no scientific standards here at all. Media are free to visit this site at any time. It is not a scientific conference. I'm not getting how that isn't an obvious pint, but concede that I may be missing something.

[southernyahoo]

Yes, but what you just said is not what he asked. He specifically asked, and I quote:

"If I submit a paper is it permissible to confirm with media that I have a paper in submission..."

I thought I addressed that when I said:

"The embargo policy you refer to deals with communication with the media".

Now it could very well be that I'm mistaken, but since Nature has a specific page dealing with communication with the media, I'm not surprised that the response was no, when the question asked was whether it was permissible to confirm with media, not whether a pre-submission version could be published.

The proper question should have been, "Can an author publish a pre-submission version on a blog, wiki, or preprint server, as per the instructions indicate here?"

RayG

I think the issue was why Dr. Ketchum wouldn't confirm what journal the paper was submitted to, or that it was submitted to a journal at all. I think BFsleuth answered that in spades. I think PN answered the other issue why a pre-submission version isn't available. It appears the data collection phase was extended which changed the overall conclusions. I don't think this is uncommon as I was reading about the publication process the other day. It can kill a paper if the conclusions are diminished in impact value, but it can also move in the more attractive direction.

[Guest]

I think that is parsing. This is not a scientific board. There are no scientific standards here at all. Media are free to visit this site at any time. It is not a scientific conference. I'm not getting how that isn't an obvious pint, but concede that I may be missing something.

This also is not "the Media". It's a public forum discussing bigfoot. The Media can also visit blogs,wikis and preprint at any time. I would like to thank BFS again though, that was the kind of info I was looking for instead of a bunch of hearsay and dancing around the questions, although I think it's the way he worded the question that got him that answer.

Here's the key phrase in BFS's answer from Nature

"our policy is that you not discuss any work submitted to Nature with journalists. "

Edited September 7, 2012 by squating squatch