Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) It's not the self publishing that is the problem---at this point I was expected that. It's the fact that she's creating this fake journal to make it look like it's being legitimately peer-reviewed. That's the problem---she's being deceptive about it. And yeah, there will be data, but under these circumstances can we trust it? This is a real bummer. Edited February 13, 2013 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 fwiw, her facebook page is back online: https://www.facebook...359075637446173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Check out Lindsay's new post, claims to have copy of the paper, shes due to publish on fri Not sure if this is new info Edited February 13, 2013 by shuseby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm sorry but this is a joke. I would have had more respect for her if she had just admitted that it didn't make it through review and had simply published her data in a white paper for everyone to see. Instead she's created a fake journal to give her article the false impression that it is legitimately peer-reviewed. That is borderline fraud/hoax. I tend to agree. This smacks of hoax. If it were legitimate we'd see it clearly stated that this is self published. Instead, by creating the air of authenticity, you undermine your credibility. A self published whitepaper would not automatically be discounted, but I fear this gamesmanship will. Those who have an agenda for not giving this paper a fair shake will never accept it and that's fine with me, as for me I'm certainly going to give this paper a real chance with an open mind to prove something to science. Nobody here has an agenda to witness failure, Doglover. It's reasonable to suggest what we're witnessing is a hoax. First of all, ther there was this 'accidental' press release, now an invented journal? It's not reassuring. It's not the self publishing that is the problem---at this point I was expected that. It's the fact that she's creating this fake journal to make it look like it's being legitimately peer-reviewed. That's the problem---she's being deceptive about it. And yeah, there will be data, but under these circumstances can we trust it? This is a real bummer. I don't know enough about journals to comment, but considering the circumstances it seems to me inventing a journal our of thin air is a risky idea. Yes, as per above posts, if the science has validity then there is potential for repeat studies... lets see if anyone chooses to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Theagenes if there is one thing I have learned about the world of bigfoot, it's that nothing nothing nothing ever goes easy or in the traditional path. It's what makes it so unique and interesting, and at times just darned right funny. The funny belly laughing is what saves our sanity. Never smooth, never according to traditional paths. Ohhhhhh!!!!! EDIT for spelling correction. Edited February 13, 2013 by doglover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PorkSol Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Its up. For 30$ :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Wait, you have to buy this?? $30? Oh boy. Ring the tiller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It's not the self publishing that is the problem---at this point I was expected that. It's the fact that she's creating this fake journal to make it look like it's being legitimately peer-reviewed. That's the problem---she's being deceptive about it. And yeah, there will be data, but under these circumstances can we trust it? This is a real bummer. If self publishing isn't the problem....then in the real world you wouldn't have a problem. Or, your statement about self publishing shouldn't be taken at face value. You've contradicted yourself. The journal isn't fake.....a journal starts at the beginning. This one has....just like all other journals!!!!! As for the data, even if it was published in a journal according to your wishes, I doubt that many here, including you would understand the material.....including me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm sure the study is for real and, assuming she has run into some bias at the major journals, starting her own is a great business decision when you've got the goods. She not only opens her own portal, but her journal has the potential to become the premier journal for research on hitherto undocumented primate species. When her data stands up to scrutiny, and has supporting evidence to back it up, there will be a flood of new research to both study newly discovered species and to document other hidden species. This new journal could rapidly achieve prominence and may be adopted by one of established journals within a year or so. It's good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Guys, I am very much familiar with the review process (in two unrelated disciplines actually) and creating your own journal to publish your article as though it's legit is beyond a red flag---it's laughable. Or would be if they're weren't real people who put up real money for this and real submitters of evidence (some on these very boards) who trusted her to do something legitimate. She could have easily come out with a statement saying that she did not feel that the edits requested by the reviewers were appropriate and that she has decided to pull her paper from the review process and publish it as is on her website as a downloadable pdf, along with copies of the various lab reports as appendices. It wouldn't have been an ideal situation, but it would have been far better than this. Read her press release---it's intended to give the impression that this is a legitimately published study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It looks like you'll have to pay $30.00 to see the manuscript. http://www.denovojournal.com/#!special-issue/crrc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Theagenes, you need to take a walk around the elephant and look at each of its other features. It's easy to get tunnel vision if you're only staring up the trunk. Edited February 13, 2013 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It's a special issue of a journal that has never had an issue. It's laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It's still good business if done right. It just doesn't conform to the stilted dogma that, frankly, is a barrier to the release of the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It is a pretty bogus thing to do, BUT... now the box has been opened, let's see what beasties come flying out. At any rate the world became a bit more interesting today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts