Guest Orygun Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 'Yall might want to steer this thread back into the subject at hand before a Mod wonders in here.... I think they've thrown up their hands at this point.
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 So we're back to weeks, not months again eh? She might as well just start saying " soon" .
Guest gerrykleier Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 It's not going to be announced today or tomorrow. She just said so in her most recent interview. I'll be polite and wait out the month, but I'm sure you're right. However, it seems like the proper courses of speculation on this thread are Why did the Ketchum Report fail to pass Peer Review? and Whither now? GK
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Why can't the 'Journal' just say YES or NO? Why do they have to leave Ketchum twisting in the wind? Cowardly Pricks Edited February 1, 2013 by mitchw 1
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 We'll work in reverse to not stir up the peanut gallery. I HAVE NO PROOF!!!!!! Many reasonable people think it was rejected a long time ago.
bipedalist Posted February 1, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) If the issue is they can't publish due to peer review the situation could be reversed in 30 seconds with a Wally Hersom check that would make a publisher's head spin. http://www.eprints.o...faq/#38-worries http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html Edited February 1, 2013 by bipedalist 1
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 According to OTLS it was rejected by Nature a long time ago and when Journals ask for revisions, she just moves stuff around and doesn't really revise anything so it keeps getting rejected.
Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Nature only accepts 8% of papers submitted. 92% failure rate, so unless it's exactly how they want it, she'd have to keep submitting. The rumored leaks mentioned the time frame, i.e. 15,000 years.
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Nature only accepts 8% of papers submitted. 92% failure rate, so unless it's exactly how they want it, she'd have to keep submitting. The rumored leaks mentioned the time frame, i.e. 15,000 years. ****. I'll be on vacation then. (A 92% failure rate is huge. Do you have a source for this?)
Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 ****. I'll be on vacation then. (A 92% failure rate is huge. Do you have a source for this?) Nature themselves http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/index.html
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Nature themselves http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/index.html WOW. Well, if it does pass peer review that is an achievement in and of itself. One should expect it to fail going in. Those odds of getting it to pass are astronomical. The naysayers really don't have a leg to stand on in terms leveraging any criticism if the paper fails. By the standards, it is practically supposed to fail.
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 According to OTLS it was rejected by Nature a long time ago and when Journals ask for revisions, she just moves stuff around and doesn't really revise anything so it keeps getting rejected. No idea how to judge this source, although he appears to know many details. One person he sights just says she has no idea how to write a scientific paper and the submission was a joke. Couple this with the rumored crazy claims from early drafts, if true, probably sealed it's fate. The money guys need to vet their champions a little better, how about an actual scientist. Again a preemptive strike, name one PHD associated with this project or one lab doing the blind studies and I'm out of this conversation for good.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 The fact that it's been accepted for peer review is a good sign! I've heard that journals like to publish any new major discoveries. If the science is as good as Dr. Ketchum claims it is, maybe it'll pass.
Guest BFSleuth Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 According to OTLS it was rejected by Nature a long time ago... OTLS? Is that Only The Little Skeptics? (sorry, couldn't resist...)....
Recommended Posts