southernyahoo Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Actually, yahoo, if you ask her you will discover that she doesn't have the ability to sequence the DNA. Oops. It makes sense to me to outsource the sequencing in order to corroborate your initial findings. It won't matter much if she could have done it herself in the long run. It's all about the evidence, the science, and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. Which you'll have no say in , concerning the paper and passing review.
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Re: peer review process. One thing that's puzzled me throughout this saga has been the posting of statements, apparently attributable to Ketchum, that predicted when the "paper would be out." When I submit a manuscript, I have a vague idea as to when I might get a response (usually 2–3 months), but I have very little idea what that response will be. If I need to conduct a major revision, that might take me 2–3 additional months to complete, followed by another protracted review. Once accepted, it's often many more months (6–9 in my experience) before galley proofs are ready and I've got a pdf I can share - that's if the journal provides a "pre-publication" copy; many still don't. Many journals of course are much faster, but there are still plenty of papers out there getting published easily a year or more after they were submitted. All of this assumes the paper is accepted. If it's rejected, I'd expect the authors to spend a couple of months making some changes suggested by the initial review before sending the manuscript to a different journal to start the process anew. In other words, I'm skeptical when someone makes statements about when their paper is coming out. I don't recall hearing or reading her say anything but "hopefully soon" and/or "shortly". I love to see if she said anything more concrete. I had not heard that.
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Actually, yahoo, if you ask her you will discover that she doesn't have the ability to sequence the DNA. Oops. How does that saying go? Something about "...but don't tell me it's raining..." I do not think "skeptic" is the proper word for you... I'll say no more.
indiefoot Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 I say we start a publication date "pool" at a buck a pop.
Guest parnassus Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 I don't recall hearing or reading her say anything but "hopefully soon" and/or "shortly". I love to see if she said anything more concrete. I had not heard that. See http://s2.excoboard.com/BFRO/124825/2242699/1
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 See http://s2.excoboard.com/BFRO/124825/2242699/1 So then I assume you did your due diligence and also listened to the radio show to confirm that this is what, indeed, was said? Even if it is correct, I am not sure how "if all goes well, spring 2011" is by anyone's definition definitive. I guess I am not understanding the point in what everyone is trying to make. She didn't say April, 21, 2011. She didn't even say April. She also included a caveat. So what? If I was in the group going over her paper, I would probably be terrified to put my name on it even if it was perfect and all evidence was there. I am sure they are being extra cautious about making sure they are not getting snookered before releasing the results of the peer review. I would, and I tend to believe they are real.
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) But you quite rightly explain that the KR & EP are 2 different things, clearly.. It's Mr SF who mainly references everything to the EP, not all of us.. I brought it up a while back actually with regards to the OP & the alleged Shootings, as people were still referring to certain things within it as the EP, which as far as i'm aware would have absolutely zero to do with the Sierra stuff except for their Samples are being tested by the same Doctor, who will ultimately/hopefully soon enough release the KR.. But I'm sure that It was Mr. Brown(M.B.) with the candlestick (CS)in the library (LB).. Edited July 25, 2011 by SweetSusiq
Guest parnassus Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) So then I assume you did your due diligence and also listened to the radio show to confirm that this is what, indeed, was said? Even if it is correct, I am not sure how "if all goes well, spring 2011" is by anyone's definition definitive. I guess I am not understanding the point in what everyone is trying to make. She didn't say April, 21, 2011. She didn't even say April. She also included a caveat. So what? If I was in the group going over her paper, I would probably be terrified to put my name on it even if it was perfect and all evidence was there. I am sure they are being extra cautious about making sure they are not getting snookered before releasing the results of the peer review. I would, and I tend to believe they are real. Snookered?Tsk tak there you go....That may be crossing the line... So are you saying the paper hasn't been written? Edited July 25, 2011 by parnassus
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Snookered?Tsk tak there you go.... *sigh*...
Guest parnassus Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) *sigh*... Greek I loved that fable, and you may recall that the trolll's mistake was swallowing the little goats' stories. Not happening. Edited July 25, 2011 by parnassus
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Greek I loved that fable, and you may recall that the troll's mistake was swallowing the little goats' stories. Not happening. Only you would paint the troll as the protagonist. God love you, Parn.
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 The end of calendar 2011 ?! what is the next stage of concern after "red flag?".... "sinking feeling?".... "freezer feeling?" I listened to one of the radioshows last night and recall the month november thrown out there, ill try to find it. It was stated the paper is out and is being peer reviewed and should be finished the process by november... I was half asleep mind you, I will find specifics when I get home....
Guest gershake Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 It was stated the paper is out and is being peer reviewed !!!!
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 !!!! According to Squatchdetective's blog, July 25, THE DNA GAME: "The Study is not out for peer review." The next sentence reads "In reality it is now as we sit here. " Seems like an unfinished sentence fragment that tantalizes me...??? Blog link So is it out for review or not?
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 I listened to it last night, I thought it was in peer review, mea culpa on that one.
Recommended Posts