Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I don't see what is so shocking about having to buy a copy of a scientific journal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The paper will be what it'll be. BUT, the more important issue, this should free up those involved under the NDA's correct? Erickson, Derek Randles, Smeja, etc. Finally they can speak freely and share their evidence?! I'm interested in this too. When and under what circumstances do the NDAs expire? Can they speak freely now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Now let's hear what the co-authors have to say. I can't believe someone would let their name be associated with something like this unless they believed in the paper and thought there was some legitimate bias at the traditional journals. I also would like to hear who was demanding all the additional tests these past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Anybody going to buy this? I plan on snagging a copy later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback 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. I don't know what you do for a living, but no offense, this is not good business. 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. Read her press release---it's intended to give the impression that this is a legitimately published study. This. It's clearly making an implication there are reviewers. Maybe there are: but I'd be very skeptical of it. 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. I disagree. I think you're ignoring the obvious ethical problems on show here. 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. 2nd time: this is not good business. Its good business if you want to get a quick buck from a hoax. I don't see what is so shocking about having to buy a copy of a scientific journal? http://en.wikipedia....entific_journal I think you normally subscribe to a journal. _________________ Where is the video that was claimed to be a part of the release? Are we seeing trickle here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 JDL, science isn't supposed to be about "good business." As for your blind men/elephant metaphor, here's the big picture or the whole elephant. When this story breaks on CNN et al., it will make her and the BF world a laughing stock, at least for the couple of hours that anyone will pay attention. "Remember that story we brought you back in November about the Texas scientist doing a study of Bigfoot DNA? Well the results are in and published in the Journal of Advanced Blah Blah. Never heard of it? Neither had we, so we started looking into it and guess what. . .? " The big picture is that this could poison the well for Sykes's study. No wonder Meldrum is not an MK fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Agree. Where is the footage? Is it with the $30 for the paper? Should be. Ericksons site is no change at all. C'mon guys. Give it up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/2/prweb10427105.htm It's starting to get around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Edit Edited February 13, 2013 by shuseby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) I don't think this has been posted here. This is from The Sasquatch Genome Project page http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/home/ "We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effectâ€. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. We did finally pass peer review with a relatively new journal. It took a fresh outlook on the part of the editors and their careful selection of reviewers with knowledge of next generation whole genome sequencing in order to pass. I have no idea who the reviewers were though I have the reviews. That was kept confidential as is the way journals handle peer reviews. That was only part of the delay and problems associated with publication though. After this journal agreed to publish the manuscript, their legal counsel advised them not to publish a manuscript on such a controversial subject as it would destroy the editors’ reputations (as it has already done to mine). I have documentation on all of this drama. So, rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community. Denovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received. We furthermore have adhered to all of the standards set here in the link below, especially since the entire review and agreement to publish was done at the previous journal": http://publicationet...hor-own-journal Edited February 13, 2013 by TnBigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Long time lurker here - I saw this explaination on http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/home/ I apologize if it's already been shared somewhere in the prior 600+ pages of posts. It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. We have had the proof for nearly 5 years but building enough data to convince mainstream science has taken a lot of time. Trying to publish has taken almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians†aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities. We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effectâ€. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. We did finally pass peer review with a relatively new journal. It took a fresh outlook on the part of the editors and their careful selection of reviewers with knowledge of next generation whole genome sequencing in order to pass. I have no idea who the reviewers were though I have the reviews. That was kept confidential as is the way journals handle peer reviews. That was only part of the delay and problems associated with publication though. After this journal agreed to publish the manuscript, their legal counsel advised them not to publish a manuscript on such a controversial subject as it would destroy the editors’ reputations (as it has already done to mine). I have documentation on all of this drama. So, rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community. Denovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received. We furthermore have adhered to all of the standards set here in the link below, especially since the entire review and agreement to publish was done at the previous journal: http://publicationethics.org/case/editor-author-own-journal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Anyone have trouble downloading, nothing happened when I clicked the download button. BTW, I just read from her PR person that it is a peer reviewed journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Agree. Where is the footage? Is it with the $30 for the paper? Should be. Ericksons site is no change at all. C'mon guys. Give it up!! So what exactly do you want them to give up? The paper has been published. You might not care for the venue but none the less it is now public. Let's see where this all shakes out... it's going to be fun no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So is DeNovo going to be the National Enquirer of scientific journals? Sure feels that way. Maybe I'll see it on offer in the grocery checkout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Give it up like give us the video. Not give up. I want to read about what Bigfoot is, but more want to see one. A clear shot of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts