Einstein and peer review. (I've never been published in Nature, but...)

[Jorge]

That's a good question. There is something in us that enjoys seeing the Black Knight continuing to declare victory while he lay bleeding with no arms and no legs I guess. I mean the comedy skit gets laughs anytime its shown. I guess when you see it in real life, it just keeps you coming back for more ...

Not sure if that's a particularly good commentary on those of use that keep prodding and poking, but it is what it is I guess.

Jim

Take a triple-helping of my last post, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[sylas]

The journal was "De Novo", and the article in question was "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies".

Thank you! This is a great addition to my collection of journal oddities.

Cheers -- sylas

[Jorge]

You know he is going to whinge because he said “nowadays”, submit to “Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley or MIT” and challenge “Evolutionary dogma” (please note the capitalization of “E” and the “dogma” label freely attached to it because it suits his purposes).

There are of course more examples that fly in the face of the claim “that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”:

• W.J. Ouweneel, “Developmental genetics of homoeosis”, Adv Genet., 18, 179-248 (1976) – fruit fly developmental anomalies
• S. Scherer, "Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport", J. Theor. Bio., 104, 289-299 (1983) - evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport an unsolved problem in theoretical biology
• G.R. Lambert, "Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer", J Theor Biol., 7, 387-403 (1984) – DNA processes should have high error rates without designer editing enzymes
• R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective", Science, 184, 62-66 (1974) - unclear formation mechanisms of halos in currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation

But let’s face it, if the manuscript’s conclusion cannot be anything other than aligning with a faith-based precondition (à la AiG membership requirement – statement of faith) where it has ignored/excluded any and all contradictory evidence, then it is more than likely to be disposed of during the editorial review of mainstream journals. But it probably doesn’t have to be that extreme; if Jorge tried to publish his “steam crater”, “faster in the past lunar recession rates”, etc “research” then it wont stand up to the basic test of scientific accuracy.

I’m sure it is true that material submitted by known YECs and IDers will be very difficult to get through to the peer-review stage nowadays, as I’m sure it is true that it is impossible for a non YEC papers or prolific anti-YEC scientists to be published in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Answers Research Journal, etc.

Source: https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf

VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper’s receipt.
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

• 1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
• 2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
• 3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
• 4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
• 5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
• 6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

…
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

© Copyright Original Source

So some YECs moan about being censored and not being considered for mainstream journals, when quite clearly they have been able to publish in mainstream journals before, and yet they set up their own journal where they censor out non-conformist views and will never publish non-YEC work. Smacks of hypocrisy.

Setting up your own journal is not new to mainstream science either. I remember that several journals (e.g. Journal of New Energy) were established to report continuing research in cold fusion given that publishing in mainstream journals had become increasingly difficult, though not impossible.

You guys are a hoot ... a HOOT !!!

Everything that Rogue06 posted, and everything that you posted - EVERYTHING - are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview. OF COURSE they're going to "get to 1st base". Just as Crick's Directed Panspermia made it to "1st base" -- because it remained within MATERIALISM. I pity how lost you are, OR.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

You guys are a hoot ... a HOOT !!!

Everything that Rogue06 posted, and everything that you posted - EVERYTHING - are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview. OF COURSE they're going to "get to 1st base". Just as Crick's Directed Panspermia made it to "1st base" -- because it remained within MATERIALISM. I pity how lost you are, OR.

Jorge

It is a shame that you've reveled in your detestable debating tactics for too long and that you are unwilling to engage your brain before posting the same knee jerk responses and sound bites. These papers remained within science, i.e. methodological naturalism, in order to argue for or against the data, prevailing paradigm, etc. If you were truly interested in honest discourse you would take time to investigate and not repeat your blunders. But then again, if you did this, you would not be you.

[robrecht]

Not in my experience. When our papers are rejected at the review stage, it's almost always because the journal editor decided it was interesting enough or appropriate for that journal. (Maybe we should write more flawed papers?)

This type of rejection should come before the external peer review process so that the authors can submit elsewhere more quickly. But journal and section editors sometimes do not do their jobs up front.

[sylas]

This type of rejection should come before the external peer review process so that the authors can submit elsewhere more quickly. But journal and section editors sometimes do not do their jobs up front.

Yes!! (This will have to do instead of a pearl, or an amen.)

[Jorge]

It is a shame that you've reveled in your detestable debating tactics for too long and that you are unwilling to engage your brain before posting the same knee jerk responses and sound bites. These papers remained within science, i.e. methodological naturalism, in order to argue for or against the data, prevailing paradigm, etc. If you were truly interested in honest discourse you would take time to investigate and not repeat your blunders. But then again, if you did this, you would not be you.

Being brutally blunt, OR, you don't know what you're talking about. It appears that you've been trained in some 'hard science' and so you've become a sort of 'high-powered technician' within that field. Good, I'm happy for you. Stick to that area and don't venture into things like philosophy of science 'cause ya stink at it.

Two more points: you speak of "honest discourse". Tell me truthfully: did you have a hard time getting the word "honest" out of your mouth? Second point: you say, "repeating (my) blunders". What, pray tell, are those "blunders"? I don't want to know what YOU THINK are "blunders", I want you to list the actual "blunders". If you can't post them then you're just engaging in slanderous, fly-by spit-balling.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

Being brutally blunt, OR, you don't know what you're talking about. It appears that you've been trained in some 'hard science' and so you've become a sort of 'high-powered technician' within that field. Good, I'm happy for you. Stick to that area and don't venture into things like philosophy of science 'cause ya stink at it.

Two more points: you speak of "honest discourse". Tell me truthfully: did you have a hard time getting the word "honest" out of your mouth? Second point: you say, "repeating (my) blunders". What, pray tell, are those "blunders"? I don't want to know what YOU THINK are "blunders", I want you to list the actual "blunders". If you can't post them then you're just engaging in slanderous, fly-by spit-balling.

Jorge

More knee jerk reactions, spewing venom and repetition of sound bites. You have it down to an art. Do you just pick and choose from this list or just randomly select them? That you have always refused to acknowledge your blunders here on NS301 has been going on for a decade now. You've refused to man up to your most recent ones and now another in this thread. So why point them out to you? You refuse to see, refuse to hear, refuse to take the responsibility for your own errors. Rather, you delve deeper into your detestable debating tactics - like your most recent posts to me. As I said, if you want honest discourse then go back to my post (#23) and try again. If you come up with the same conclusion that those papers I listed "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" then I know you are hopelessly lost, preferring to wallow in your own ignorance and therefore only God can save you. Your choice.

[HMS_Beagle]

you say, "repeating (my) blunders". What, pray tell, are those "blunders"? I don't want to know what YOU THINK are "blunders", I want you to list the actual "blunders".

Jorge

You just made a huge blunder on the "moon recession" thread where you repeatedly claimed the moon's recession rate was faster in the past when all the data shows it was slower in the past.

There there's that brilliant article you wrote for TrueOrigin claiming there are no such thing as impact craters on the Earth, wanting everyone to believe that Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona is really a giant gopher hole.

The mistakes and scientific stupidity you've spread around the web are legendary.

[rogue06]

The journal was "De Novo", and the article in question was "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies".

That was it.

For those who are curious, but also not interested in paying $30 to read the paper, there appears to be a (less flashy) version available here:
http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/view-dna-study/

It was supposed to be free access but Dr. Ketchum (a Texas veterinarian) who wrote the study and started up the journal turned around and started charging for it.

And IIRC independent analysis of the samples she said came from a Sasquatch-human hybrid turned out to have come from a possum (thus explaining the origins of Tweb member Thirsty Possum?)

[Jorge]

More knee jerk reactions, spewing venom and repetition of sound bites. You have it down to an art. Do you just pick and choose from this list or just randomly select them? That you have always refused to acknowledge your blunders here on NS301 has been going on for a decade now. You've refused to man up to your most recent ones and now another in this thread. So why point them out to you? You refuse to see, refuse to hear, refuse to take the responsibility for your own errors. Rather, you delve deeper into your detestable debating tactics - like your most recent posts to me. As I said, if you want honest discourse then go back to my post (#23) and try again. If you come up with the same conclusion that those papers I listed "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" then I know you are hopelessly lost, preferring to wallow in your own ignorance and therefore only God can save you. Your choice.

Just as I had predicted - NOT A SINGLE "blunder" is actually listed.
So, once again, I was right all along: nothing more than slanderous, fly-by spit-balling.

Just curious, was 'slander and fly-by spit-balling' part of your dissertation defense?

Jorge

[Jorge]

You just made a huge blunder on the "moon recession" thread where you repeatedly claimed the moon's recession rate was faster in the past when all the data shows it was slower in the past.

There there's that brilliant article you wrote for TrueOrigin claiming there are no such thing as impact craters on the Earth, wanting everyone to believe that Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona is really a giant gopher hole.

The mistakes and scientific stupidity you've spread around the web are legendary.

I said actual : ACTUAL ... A - C - T - U - A - L ... ACTUAL.

Just because YOU can't get it right, comprehend it or
want to 'get it' does not make it "actual", Beagle Boy.

Now hurry back to your box of jumbo crayons before Johnny chews on a few!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I said actual : ACTUAL ... A - C - T - U - A - L ... ACTUAL.

Just because YOU can't get it right, comprehend it or
want to 'get it' does not make it "actual", Beagle Boy.

Jorge

Those are actual blunders made by you Jorge. Huge ones and they're well documented. Can't bluster you way out of them.

Unless you have evidence the Barringer Meteor Crater really is a giant gopher hole.

[rogue06]

Those are actual blunders made by you Jorge. Huge ones and they're well documented. Can't bluster you way out of them.

Unless you have evidence the Barringer Meteor Crater really is a giant gopher hole.

A mossy (mossrose) PIN™ strike. (a not-so inside joke)

[Roy]

I said actual : ACTUAL ... A - C - T - U - A - L ... ACTUAL.

Stating the ICR would not use a constant recession rate for the moon while quoting them doing exactly that looked like a blunder to me.

Roy