Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) @ knappster007 Something of this magnitude, I assume it would take even longer for a paper that scientist would believe to be highly doubtful that a species could exist for so long, for the most part, undetected. . Edited January 4, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 ^So what is your read on this situation then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Peer review = Editorial staff of said journal are discussing at length: Ed1: Gee, we have an opportunity here to publish the breakthru story of the century! ... in biology, anyways. Ed2: Fine if it carries over into further successful studies. In the meantime, we'll be The Joking Journal! Ed3: Argosy published Patti. Let them present it! (And it goes round and round.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 For those of you wondering about the speed of academic publication, or a date certain, don't hold your breath. As a professor who has published in peer reviewed academic publications, the process is agonizingly slow. The author has absolutely no control over the speed of review or any knowledge of who is reviewing the results (as it should be). The reviewers do not know the author(s) either (hence, blind). Some journals take six months or more for reviews. If there are revisions requested, it goes back through the process again. Academia is a very slow world. Bottom line: if her work is in peer review, she will not know where it stands or when it will be published until it is accepted by the journal. Once accepted, a publication date is set and then public relations and press releases may begin. Thanks for that. I kind of got the same sense as well just from reading the retraction watch website where a multitude were sent back for revision. Given the weight and magnitude of the paper, this could take literally years I imagine. Knowing this, albeit as an outsider, it might've been best for the MK camp to keep radio silence until they had concrete and definitive answers. I almost wish that I hadn't read the press release or heard the interviews because the waiting is so agonizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 For those of you wondering about the speed of academic publication, or a date certain, don't hold your breath. As a professor who has published in peer reviewed academic publications, the process is agonizingly slow. The author has absolutely no control over the speed of review or any knowledge of who is reviewing the results (as it should be). The reviewers do not know the author(s) either (hence, blind). Some journals take six months or more for reviews. If there are revisions requested, it goes back through the process again. Academia is a very slow world. Bottom line: if her work is in peer review, she will not know where it stands or when it will be published until it is accepted by the journal. Once accepted, a publication date is set and then public relations and press releases may begin. She is apparently at least somewhat aware of what its standing is as per some of her statements. She spoke of sending back revisions (which were requested by the Journal, as I recall) in December and was awaiting their response. I think that was from the C2C show in Dec At any rate, she is aware of the progress or lack thereof. I'm not sure what that means exactly... GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 ^So what is your read on this situation then? I think a reviewer or 2 are having a hard time green lighting it,and keep going over the data to make sure it's correct. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I think a reviewer or 2 are having a hard time green lighting it,and keep going over the data to make sure it's correct. JMO Is that just a guess or do you have some insight into the particulars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It is a good point because you need to consider all the possible sources of contamination, particularly one which might introduce foreign DNA into the interior of the sample. I don't think it necessarily negates your findings at all, particularly the single hair, but it absolutely needs to be considered. But it's been considered, acknowledged, accounted for, etc, etc many times now... how much more should we consider it, and how many more times should we say "good point"? I considered this from the git-go. The lab was informed of it from the git-go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 But it's been considered, acknowledged, accounted for, etc, etc many times now... how much more should we consider it, and how many more times should we say "good point"? I considered this from the git-go. The lab was informed of it from the git-go. It was the first time it was mentioned here. Glad it was taken into account. As I said I don't think it would negate your finding anyway, especially the single hair (which I find more convincing than even the universal mammal primer not picking anything else up). If your samples are somehow BF and not bear then it's going to take something pretty extraordinary to show that. Maybe MK's got that, maybe she doesn't. Or maybe she tagged it as bear from the get go and she's been stringing Justin and Derek along. Who knows at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I think the only explanation that works on most levels that are known to the public, is if Justin somehow gvae diff't samples to MK, than he did to Bart and I. But he's confident they are the same, and there are other compelling reasons to believe they are the same. That being said, I can see why anyone who sees all the pictures of this particular piece of hide could think that that more than one source animal is being represented. Some pictures and some areas are decidedly whiter hair/fur, and some seem to be much darker, as one would normally expect from a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest knappster007 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 As for the process, the editor assigns the reviewers for the paper. The reviewers for academic publications are usually professors at research and other universities who are experts in the particular scientific area. They are usually not paid so as to not be subject to bias. If what was posted earlier about revisions being requested in December are correct, it depends on the type of revisions requested as for how long it will take. Speculation on when this will come out is futile. It could be quick (a couple more months, yes, this is quick in academia land) or it could be a while longer. Relax and wait for the process to take its course. I salute Dr. Ketchum for her work. This is not an easy process and it makes it worse to have us all hanging over the whole thing speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 This waiting is really hard for me -- never was much good at it. For all the time & effort she's put into it, even without all the controversy, slings and arrows, Dr. Ketchum must have amazing patience to wait for this decision. If she can stand it, then I can, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I hope people are ready for the possibility that it might not get published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I hope people are ready for the possibility that it might not get published. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Also I'm not sure that mainstream American science has the courage to truly examine and review the subject. I also suspect politics and posturing are occurring behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I think the only explanation that works on most levels that are known to the public, is if Justin somehow gvae diff't samples to MK, than he did to Bart and I. But he's confident they are the same, and there are other compelling reasons to believe they are the same. That being said, I can see why anyone who sees all the pictures of this particular piece of hide could think that that more than one source animal is being represented. Some pictures and some areas are decidedly whiter hair/fur, and some seem to be much darker, as one would normally expect from a bear. It is my understanding Justin did not actually send the sample to Ketchum. Justin said he was away hunting at the time of the mailing, that it was Justin's wife that actually selected the sample from the freezer and mailed it to Ketchum. Did your vetting of the samples confirm this? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts