It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
This just in: The Ketchum paper has been rejected by peer review journals in the U.S. Before we give you the details, here's a statement from Steven Streufert of Coalition for Reason, Science, Sanity in Bigfoot Research:
It is official, then: The Ketchum paper was REJECTED and FAILED PEER REVIEW.
No conspiracy theory can change what this means: their science is NOT sound. It failed.
- Steven Streufert
Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Breaking: Dr. Melba Ketchum
bigfootevidence.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
This just in: The Ketchum paper has been rejected by peer review journals in the U.S. Before we give you the details, here's a statement from Steven Streufert of Coalition for Reason, Science, Sanity in Bigfoot Research:
It is official, then: The Ketchum paper was REJECTED and FAILED PEER REVIEW.
No conspiracy theory can change what this means: their science is NOT sound. It failed.
- Steven Streufert
Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Read the article again (and some of the comments) it does seem it will get another chance in Russia (said, Igor Burtsev, the Russian scientist ) one person in the comment section said that would cost about $59.99 and for $9.99 extra it will get published in the back of a "water journal" whatever that is.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
There's dozens of pay-to-publish "journals" out there, but they carry no clout, except with the ignorant and the delusional... I don't know if you follow the 9/11 stuff, but the "journal" that published the "thermite" article was in fact not peer-reviewed and in fact was pay-to-publish...
It was laughed at by the mainstream media, for that very reason, but it dragged up here and on other fringe sites endlessly...
If they go that route, it makes them endlessly LESS credible...
Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Originally posted by longlostbrother
Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Read the article again (and some of the comments) it does seem it will get another chance in Russia (said, Igor Burtsev, the Russian scientist ) one person in the comment section said that would cost about $59.99 and for $9.99 extra it will get published in the back of a "water journal" whatever that is.
There's dozens of pay-to-publish "journals" out there, but they carry no clout, except with the ignorant and the delusional... I don't know if you follow the 9/11 stuff, but the "journal" that published the "thermite" article was in fact not peer-reviewed and in fact was pay-to-publish...
It was laughed at by the mainstream media, for that very reason, but it dragged up here and on other fringe sites endlessly...
If they go that route, it makes them endlessly LESS credible...
That helps demonstrate US peer-review may have some "pay-to-NOT-publish" influences.
Originally posted by Maxmars
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I don't mean to contradict anyone here, but let's not forget that:
- many (.many) papers are reject the first time it is submitted (sometimes more) ... until we see the rationale it is an assumption to say it was "bad" science - which surprises me about the proclamation of the scientist in the article - which takes on the vacuous "nyah nyah nanny nanny boo boo" tone.
- We have to admit that there is great force behind the purposeful attempt to delegitimize this field in general.
- the source is a blog.
Maybe we should actually see the paper, the actual rejection notice, and review the facts before we jump in the 'ding dong the witch is dead' bandwagon.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Igor Burtsev speaks out as Ketchum loses supporters. Is the peer review process moving to Russia after 2 years of rejection? Michael Merchant, Steven Streufert and James Bobo Fay issue statements.
Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by longlostbrother
Actually, no. This is not my principle area of interest or study; just one that I enjoy following.
I have heard the opposite though, regarding the lack of evidence.... especially that academic media, and her friends, often seize and sensationalize the huckster's and their exploits while ignoring what they cannot explain. It's all hearsay to me. Which includes the oft-repeated assertions that 'there's no proof.'
The reason I do not simply accept the assertion that all evidence is manufactured or exploited hoaxterism is because I now the culture and players in the areas of academic publication and have witnessed first hand the suppression of data and information which could trigger a public discussion of how science is "protected" by the information gatekeepers. Especially when they would have to admit their zealous objections were misplaced.
But of course, this is a choice. You needn't expect me to assume you will believe or reject what I say.
I believe there are many areas - especially of ethnography (and curiously, anything that deals with antiquity,) which have been the virtual victims of information genocide... perhaps because the image of the dissenting academics and researchers are more important than the facts.... to them - who rather uniquely get to "decide" what is called true, and what is determined to be worthy of pursuit.
edit on 7-12-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Originally posted by longlostbrother
There's dozens of pay-to-publish "journals" out there, but they carry no clout, except with the ignorant and the delusional... I don't know if you follow the 9/11 stuff, but the "journal" that published the "thermite" article was in fact not peer-reviewed and in fact was pay-to-publish...
It was laughed at by the mainstream media, for that very reason, but it dragged up here and on other fringe sites endlessly...
If they go that route, it makes them endlessly LESS credible...
That helps demonstrate US peer-review may have some "pay-to-NOT-publish" influences.
edit on 6-12-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)