Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013 edited
     
    ...at least at this time, for those of you not following the Bio Woo thread. Here are leaked documents that appeared on the net from the peer review process from the Journals 'Nature' and 'JAMEZ'. Just putting them out there. The head of the study claims she did not leak them but is glad they were leaked and here they are:

    http://www.bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_18.html
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Oxford has some samples and expect to report in a month or two.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    It is marked in the end "Accept for publication with revisions". One of the things they will not accept is that it walks upright ( no evidence except video and eyewitness). They are agreeing with it being a heretofore unknown North American primate.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013 edited
     
    Hmmmm...

    Reviewer #3 sums up pretty much the drift of the reviews
    An exceptional claim such as this demands for exceptional convincing evidence - something the authors do not have:
    However, they reviewers seem to be generally in favour of publication, given a fixup of the paper.


    I will be interested to see if this actually turns up in Nature. I don't think they will be best pleased to see the reviews published, assuming they are real. There is talk about public reviewing but nobody much does it yet.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusHmmmm...

    Reviewer #3 sums up pretty much the drift of the reviews
    An exceptional claim such as this demands for exceptional convincing evidence - something the authors do not have:
    . However, they reviewers seem to be generally in favour of publication, given a fixup of the paper.


    I will be interested to see if this actually turns up in Nature. I don't think they will be best pleased to see the reviews published, assuming they are real. There is talk about public reviewing but nobody much does it yet.


    My guess is that they are waiting on the results from Oxford at this point.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Regarding the title of this thread: it does NOT look like Bigfoot is real. It looks like somebody has found some hairs in the forest that have DNA sequences that are a bit peculiar and are not inconsistent with there being an unusual hominin somewhere in the woods.

    We need to learn a little more reserve and a better degree of caution in our pseudoscientific pronouncements around here.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    I guess the documents were dumped on Google Docs. Most likely they will NOT be pleased, as you say, and a lawsuit could result.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusRegarding the title of this thread: it does NOT look like Bigfoot is real. It looks like somebody has found some hairs in the forest that have DNA sequences that are a bit peculiar and are not inconsistent with there being an unusual hominin somewhere in the woods.

    We need to learn a little more reserve and a better degree of caution in our pseudoscientific pronouncements around here.


    It's more than hair, it's blood, saliva, flesh etc. I did preface the body of the thread with a mini disclaimer "at least at this time", nobody was gonna look otherwise.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Civilised journals do not sue their authors. They merely ignore them in future.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Probably not any of the authors. Most likely a mole somewhere.
  1.  
    Conspiracy is the last refuge of the desperate
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013 edited
     
    I follow the Melba Ketchum bigfoot story every so often. I don't believe the journal 'Nature' was ever involved. From what I understand (last looking in about a month ago), Ketchum had submitted the paper to a brand-new, peer-reviewed journal called DeNovo (sonoboy's second link in the 'bio woo' thread: http://www.advancedsciencefoundation.org/#!special-issue/crrc ).

    The Ketchum version of the story is that the paper was reviewed and accepted for publication. But then someone stepped in and said, we can't publish that. Then the rights to the journal were transferred to Ketchum herself, and the paper was published online. So far it has largely been ignored except among the rabid followers of all things bigfoot, who don't agree with each other about anything. The documents sonoboy linked to were apparently published to demonstrate that peer review did in fact occur.

    Meanwhile, a separate bigfoot DNA study is being conducted by Brian Sykes of Oxford University.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Posted By: oakBrian Sykes of Oxford University.



    Now that would be interesting. I believe he is the one who wrote the excellent book about Sykes-es.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: oakI follow the Melba Ketchum bigfoot story every so often. I don't believe the journal 'Nature' was ever involved. From what I understand (last looking in about a month ago), Ketchum had submitted the paper to a brand-new, peer-reviewed journal called DeNovo (sonoboy's second link in the 'bio woo' thread:http://www.advancedsciencefoundation.org/#!special-issue/crrc).

    The Ketchum version of the story is that the paper was reviewed and accepted for publication. But then someone stepped in and said, we can't publish that. Then the rights to the journal were transferred to Ketchum herself, and the paper was published online. So far it has largely been ignored except among the rabid followers of all things bigfoot, who don't agree with each other about anything. The documents sonoboy linked to were apparently published to demonstrate that peer review did in fact occur.

    Meanwhile, a separate bigfoot DNA study being conducted by Brian Sykes of Oxford University.


    Look again. The leaked papers are of Natures review process. It has been accepted for publication in Nature, JAMEZ. There are other publications.
  2.  
    I heard they are planning to compare the DNA of Bigfoot with Obama's DNA to prove that he is not human.
    • CommentAuthortensor
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    What about Bigfoot's birth certificate?
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Why are you all against bigfoot?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Posted By: sonoboyIt has been accepted for publication in Nature,


    I don't think so.
    Reviewer #1
    I therefore cannot recommend publication at the moment

    Reviewer #2
    In my view, there conclusions are not supported by the data.

    Reviewer #3
    I am afraid that I do not find the paper worth publishing.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: sonoboyIt has been accepted for publication in Nature,


    I don't think so.
    Reviewer #1
    I therefore cannot recommend publication at the moment

    Reviewer #2
    In my view, there conclusions are not supported by the data.

    Reviewer #3
    I am afraid that I do not find the paper worth publishing.


    It's right there, -Accept for publication with revisions-.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
     
    The E-mail photo at the bottom is clearly marked.