Note that if you submit a paper and talk to the media about your findings, they will reject the paper. Not until within 7 days of publication can you talk, and generally that will be a press conference if it is a major finding.

Why do publications do this? Because they are fronting a LOT of money for peer review and editing to get the paper ready to publish. A grandstanding author that talks freely will reduce their return on investment. They have a right to make sure that when they publish a paper that they are the first to market with a readership that supports their investment.

Of course after publication an author can talk openly.

Methinks a lot of folks are getting their undies in a bunch over nothing more than the length of time and effort that goes into publication at this level. This is totally expected. I think publication by 2013 or 2014 is plausible, depending on rewrites. If it comes this year that’s a bonus. I look forward to reading her report with great interest.

And yes, decent scientists do try to disprove things, however there is a huge difference between disproving and refusing to see proof. The scientific community, like many others, is sprinkled with both. And I would prefer the journal in question was able to quietly give the article to the reviewers in the appropriate fields of knowledge and let them do their jobs without the added stress of media and peer pressure to influence them one way or another.

I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes here.

I am well aware of Dr. Disotell’s stance regarding “(dis)proof.” Moreover, I submit that any scientist worth their PhD should tell you the same! Dr. Disotell’s duty, as well as that of the other panel members, should be to attempt to “disprove” Dr. Ketchum’s research. It is only by probing for any/all weaknesses in her methods that her hypotheses can be accepted. If she cannot explain or remedy any resultant flaws, then her claims will have (correctly) failed to “prove” anything.

Of course none of us have any way of knowing to what Journal Dr. Ketchum submitted her paper. I merely suggested the RHI as its expressed purpose is to “promote research and provide a venue for the dissemination of scholarly peer-reviewed papers evaluating the possible existence and nature of relict hominoid species around the world.” As such I would expect no less than the most rigorous disection of Dr. Ketchum’s submission while at the same time not rejecting her submisson out-of-hand, as other Journals might, as preposterous.

That it is taking so long for her work to be vetted suggests it is:
A.) Currently withstanding on-going attempts to disprove her hypotheses; or,
B.) Being rejected/returned for clarification; or
C.) Been mercilessly torn to shreds under the unblinking glare of scientific scrutiny.

Time will tell…

You can guarantee that Melba would have problems with that panel because of arch-sceptics on it. You may appreciate that some forms of scepticism in practice may not be reasonable or scientific.

This is an example from history of what I mean. In the nineteenth century a man (in Edinburgh ?) had a leg painlessly removed under hypnosis. Some scientists couldn’t believe it and said he was pretending!

Todd Disotell for example is on record as stating that his job as a scientist is not to prove anything but to disprove it.

I think there there are problems in the subject itself apart from any from rampant scepticism. This does not mean the work is wrong in whats important.

Isn’t this EXACTLY what Drs.’ Meldrum, Bindernagle, Disotell, Nekaris, et al. “Relict Hominoid Inquiry” Board/Journal was created for?

Why not submit the paper to the one panel that would not have an a priori bias against the existance of Sasquatch?

Then again, maybe Dr. Ketchum has done exactly that and even “they” are having problems with her findings…

SUBMISSION
Authors are to submit their manuscripts to the Editor-in-Chief, preferably via email. The following items are required: a cover letter with a brief introduction describing the author’s qualifications, and a statement that the submission has not been previously published in another journal, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere; an original manuscript (including the text, tables, and figures), two clean hard copies, and a CD (or discs) containing the manuscript and figures. Label the CD with the name of the file(s) and date. Microsoft Word format is required. Make sure your word processing program’s “fast save” feature is turned off. Do not deliver files that contain hidden text. For example, do not use your word processor’s automated features to create footnotes or reference lists.

It seems essential that details of the submission are not revealed before publication in view of the reception they might get in the media and internet. All the criticisms, distortions and pure bloody mindedness!

Melba might find herself in a position where her work could be torn to pieces and not be able to answer back. In the process bringing the bigfoot endeavor into disrepute. No she’s best to keep mum!

That said, is this the DNA sample that supposedly came from that hunter guy who supposedly shot a mother bigfoot in front of the babies?

Ulimately, though, this is all just speculation, and time will tell. I’ll leave it at that.