Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The journal is just sticking to it's standards. If reviewers have questions about specifics that don't make sense to them, how would it look to the larger community when released? Let's take the 15,000 year argument. According to the leaked information, one of the reviewers thought that they would have to be around longer if they originated in SW Europe. If they originated in Siberia the timeframe would work. Just for that adjustment you'd have to recalculate the rate of nomadic travel which could be spread throughout the entire paper. We don't know exactly what things the reviewers sent it back for, as that leak might not be accurate. Think of it as testing a beta for a video game. The companies get feedback and fix the bugs from the testers. If a company releases that game with many of the bugs still in place, people are going to blast that company. Now expand that to these journals and the reviewers aren't going to be the ones blamed. The Journal will lose ALL credibility if they publish something that the reviewers don't find viable. They don't even have to agree, they just have to make sure the science matches the interpretation. Ketchum would be ridiculed for a short time, but she wouldn't stop being able to find work. Nature would not be looked at seriously by the scientific community ever again. So I think this isn't so much a matter of Nature stringing this out, as it is Ketchum maybe being a little overzealous with her interpretations in places. It is an exciting discovery, so I don't fault her. Something this big is going to require patience. The biggest problem, in my mind anyway, is giving a timeline for release until just saying the process would be finished when it's finished. Saying weeks just raises expectations. I only post here when I have a question or something relevant to add, (not often,lol), but did I miss something from the last radio interview? Did MK say it was in revision still, rejected?? I was under the impression they were waiting for a publication date. Maybe I should have listened, but on first attempt, I could not find the right show/link. Only rejection I heard about was the first on Dec. 6th. I have no idea about any of the subsequent submissions. It could be awaiting publication now. I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 So maybe either Ketchum or the Journal has to have a take it leave it style chat. Why would a Journal's reputation be harmed irreparably if they didn't agree with the interpretation of the results. Are they there to vet the results and the conclusion? Do they even check the data themselves. ( I think, its no) So why would a complaint about the interpretation be so important to the journal. It's going to happen anyway after publication. BTW, what happened to the Journals that had to withdraw some medical papers recently because the results had been faked? Why isn't a journal held to account for making sure all results are real? sorry about the italics and funny formatiing, the server doesn't like my tablet Is there some magical minim of monster minds that are uniquely capable of grasping the results of a genetics paper? Why not let all the geneticists on earth sink their fangs into the pulp? They're going to do it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 It's not about agreeing with the interpretations, it's that the interpretations match the data. If she claims hybridizations because it contains human mitochondrial DNA, it could be send back because she's assuming hybridization. Chimps match human DNA 94% and no one claims they're a hybrid. It's a tedious process. The difference between saying a human/primate hybrid and saying unknown animal that contains human and primate DNA is important. And that's just one example. The process is more of a proof-reading lesson than it is an analysis of the science. And when they point out one thing, it has to be changed throughout the entire paper. Think terminology issue and that's where I think the issues lie at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 thanks, njjohn. That's quite persuasive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Here's a terrible question. Could it be that Ketchum is holding up publication of the paper because she insists on BIgfoot being recognized as a human hybrid? She has stated a wish to have them protected as such. So if what njjohn says about the question of interpreting the results to support a hybrid is fact, then it suggests Ketchum's testing has been sound and reproducible: Just as Ketchum has been saying about her testing. Is this what's holding up publication? A protection agenda? What in the world? A handful of certified humans aren't going to make this decision in a democracy. Get on with it Edited February 1, 2013 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I was just using the hybrid wording as an example, not that it's the actual hold up. I have no inside info on what revisions have or haven't been asked for in her paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 DNA | Anthropology | Social Conscience If her paper covers those Three bases, no wonder it's 50 some pages long. As the editor of a science journal, perhaps I only want the DNA part of it and in not much more than 15 pages. Point 1. We find in this DNA a previously undocumented species living in North America. Point 2. This new species is a homo. (I assume the DNA proves that much clearly.) "Just the facts, ma'am." Joe Friday, Dragnet. As for the Anthropology & Social Conscience aspects, she can publish all that on her own. -- The impact of "new species of homo" oughta have quite a few interested parties beating a path to her door. Writers have been known to compromise with editors in order to get a start. As for Justin's Sierra steak, Please let it stay in its own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Why in the world does Bigfoot need to be recognized as a human type in order to be protected? Many species are already protected. I sincerely hope the issue of hybridization is not what's keeping this train from leaving the station. Just show good evidence that some unidentified primate is out there or close by. The culture will be able to work with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Only rejection I heard about was the first on Dec. 6th. Wait, what? Is this one of those rumors I somehow missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 2, 2013 Just an aside but wasn't Nature specifically ruled out as the journal long ago by Ketchum herself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Is there some magical minim of monster minds that are uniquely capable of grasping the results of a genetics paper? Why not let all the geneticists on earth sink their fangs into the pulp? They're going to do it anyway I don't think the other qualified scientists would pay it any attention without a published paper. They simply aren't motivated until there is data and a conclusion to verify or refute. The last ditch effort for me would be to send the data to all the most reputable geneticists in the world along with the manuscript , then see if any take interest. Atleast with a published paper, the refutations would go through peer review as well, instead of the lower standard of the media, blogs forums etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) I don't think the other qualified scientists would pay it any attention without a published paper. They simply aren't motivated until there is data and a conclusion to verify or refute. The last ditch effort for me would be to send the data to all the most reputable geneticists in the world along with the manuscript , then see if any take interest. Atleast with a published paper, the refutations would go through peer review as well, instead of the lower standard of the media, blogs forums etc. I'm sure that just about everybody associated with Primate DNA as well as many Anthropologists, Paleontologists etc would check the paper out even if it was simply published on line. Certainly Sykes and Paavo (sp?) would. If there was interesting data they would pursue it further. In fact, I would think it would ignite COMPETITION! GK Edited February 2, 2013 by gerrykleier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Disotell has already said he would like to look at the data and see if it has any merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Disotell has already written it off. He just wants to pick through to justify his position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Or put himself in the position of savior and co-opt the discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts