Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

'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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gerrykleier

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't the 'Journal' just say YES or NO? Why do they have to leave Ketchum twisting in the wind? Cowardly Pricks

Edited by mitchw
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

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 by bipedalist
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BFSleuth

According to OTLS it was rejected by Nature a long time ago...

OTLS? Is that Only The Little Skeptics?

(sorry, couldn't resist...).... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...