Wednesday, September 18, 2013

DNA Study - Response to false claim "Accept for publication with revisions" means study was not approved for publication.

A anonymous commenter claimed that he/she has published scientific papers and that the phrase  "Accept for publication with revisions" does not mean the paper was accepted for publication. Another blogger pounced on this comment and used it to rebut my posting of the leaked JAMEZ passing peer review. Below is "Shaw Evidences" erroneous claim:

A blogger named Scott Carpenter was all giddy when he recieved the leaked peer review letter and claimed that Ketchum's paper did indeed pass peer review. His celebration ended rather quickly when a commenter posted this response:

Source: Bigfoot Evidence

Sorry Shawn nice try but I am still "giddy" because your sources are anonymous and have no documentation to back up their claims as usual.

 Below is the statement Shawn was referring to:
Scott, please. You are obviously not familiar with the peer review process. "Accept with revisions" means it did NOT pass. It means the revision has to address the points by the reviewers so that it can be accepted. After correction, addition, the review starts all over again. The outcome could still be "Nope, not like this". Besides, this information was out there in December last year already.

Source: I have published in journals myself.

Below is my response:

I respectfully and completely disagree. I have done extensive research on how papers are graded and what protocols the referees or reviewers follow. The term or phrase "accept for publication with revisions" is one of the proper forms of this statement that referees make when a paper has been approved for publication after the revisions have been made. If the anonymous commenter  would have read the JAMEZ peer review he/she would have seen that Dr. Ketchum in her responses to the referees either explained or made the requested revisions.

The commenter is incorrect and has made a false statement. The claim "I have published papers before" holds no value or merit. It is only a baseless claim from an anonymous poster.

Source (s):

ASME Journals Digital Submission Tool

 Recommendation for publication
• Accept As Is (no changes required)
Accept With Minor Changes (changes suggested but not mandatory – paper will not be re-reviewed, rebuttal not required)
• Revisions Required (work acceptable but revisions required per reviewer comments)

You can reduce untold amounts of frustration you may impose upon authors and help the profession immensely if your cover letter includes........

        Your summary opinion

            A. Accept in present form or with slight changes.

            B. Accept for publication after minor revision, with a suggestion about the length.

            C. Reconsider for publication after extensive revision.

            D. Reject, with suggestions for possible submission elsewhere.

The Blogger (Shawn Evidence) also posted the following claiming that the leaks from the Journal Nature were falsified.

 For some, the "leak" may have been contrived. Steven Streufert, a very wise Bigfooter isn't buying any of it. He made the following comments on Facebook:

"Pretty clearly she leaked it, since she created the journal and made up the reviewers, don't you think?"
"And the stuff from NATURE... my friend tells me they would NEVER leak that kind of thing, not with their reputation and ethical standard. Clearly this came from the Ketchum camp. More fiction."
 Source: Bigfoot Evidence

Below is my response

Robert Lindsay published the "leaked" Journal Nature's Peer Review from the first submission of the Ketchum DNA Study. This leak came from an "excellent source and friend of mine" and Shawn Evidence linked to this and reported it as well. Steven Strufert is not a wise as Shawn thinks he is. Please read what Robert Lindsay said about the source of the Peer Review and Dr. Ketchums Response Letter:

Dr. Melba Ketchum wanted to sue Nature Magazine for defamation of character. It was never quite proven that Nature Magazine had rejected Ketchum’s paper or even that they had received it. However, I have it from an excellent source, a friend of mine, who worked with Ketchum that indeed it was at Nature for some time and they did in fact reject it

Therefore, Matt Moneymaker’s leak along those lines was correct.

There is even a letter from Nature detailing the changes that they wanted her to make in order to run the piece. My source believed that Nature was scared off by the unknown DNA finding in Ketchum’s paper. They were afraid that that sounded too crazy and they didn’t want to seem like kooks. My source told me that Melba had proof that Nature leaked parts of her paper out into the scientific community (another long standing rumor supposedly unproven) and Melba had no way to defend herself against the attacks coming in from the leaks without jeopardizing publication of the paper which she was not allowed to talk about.
The source felt that Melba is “a bit whacky, but her heart was in the right place, and her science was good.” Melba enlisted an attorney to sue Nature for defamation of character, but the attorney did not want to touch the case for fear of being labeled a kook. The source said that that list of labs that worked with Melba was impressive.

Source: Robert Lindsay

Shawn's posting on the subject:

Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA paper has been published (under her own journal), yet, little is known about what actually happened between her and Nature Magazine (where the paper was first submitted to). According to sources, the paper was resubmitted multiple times, but was ultimately rejected by the journal. Blogger Robert Lindsay has gotten his hands on the peer review documents between Ketchum and Nature Magazine and has provided links to the two documents of the exchange. In his post, Lindsay reveals the stringent nature of the peer review process and how difficult it was for Ketchum to push her paper through:

Source: Bigfoot Evidence

This is interesting because if what Mr Streufert claims is true (and Shawn supports) and Dr. Ketchum was the source then Robert Lindsay's  "excellent source, a friend of mine"  is Dr. Melba Ketchum and both Robert Lindsay and Shawn Evidence are in collusion with Melba and both posting her"fiction".

 I do not think this is possible given the visceral hostility between the Bigfoot Mafia (Shawn, Robert Lindsay, et al) and the "Ketchum Camp" Again I do not think Mr. Streufert is all that wise. 

Also Robert Lindsay appears to agree that the leaked documents are authentic and even references the poor treatment he feels Dr. Ketchum received from the Journal Nature.

I did receive the Journal Nature Peer Review from the second submission and a screen shot of the acceptance email from JAMEZ from an anonymous source. I posted it previously on my blog: EXCLUSIVE - Newly leaked Information shows that the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Study PASSED PEER REVIEW - UPADTED

I can assure the reader that the source was NOT Dr. Ketchum. I do not know the source personally and until a few days ago I had never corresponded with him. I can tell you that this person is a man. I have visted his FaceBook page and can verify that fact from his pictures.

Shawn and the "Bigfoot Mafia" have EGG on their collective face again. Making unsubstantiated claims, referencing bogus sources, and providing no documentation.


  1. Scott. Again. I made that comment. I have been through review processes of three journal publications I made. Wether you believe me or not is irrelevant. I have reviewed papers for conferences in my field. It is no big deal for any scientist.

    Fact of the matter is: if revisions are not made to the satisfaction of the reviewer the paper will still not be accepted. The editor sends the review to the author. The author makes revisions or explains why no revision is deemed required and sends the revised laper plus comments back to the editor. The editor initiates another round of review, usually but not always by the same reviewers.

    The reviewer provides a recommendation; but the final acceptance and decision to publish is with the editor. Not with any one of the reviewers.

    Anyways. I really admire your field work. Keep doing it. And please do not get upset about such things. There is no need to defend Ketchum. If Bigfoot are real (which I hope they are) proof will come in due time.

    1. The revisions were made and the paper was accepted by JAMEZ. I have provided the documentation, if you chose not to accept it then there is nothing I can do. I have also provided source material that the wording on the email "accept for publication with revisions" is documentation the paper was accepted, again if you choose not to accept this so be it. I know who the publisher of JAMEZ was, I know he made the call to Dr. Ketchum, I know he told her it was approved for publication, I know it passed the JAMEZ peer review process. I can't release his name, again I had an email from one of my closest and trusted friends Dave Paulides, I posted it for documentation, it went down like he said it did, so if you choose not to accept that then that is your prerogative, but I can't "change my mind" from the truth. We can agree to disagree.

    2. Very simple sir, It passed...with revisions, It wasn't rejected...with revisions, It passed with revisions...big difference !

  2. And sir (my goodness) It was approved for publication, AFTER THE REVISIONS !

  3. Scott,,thank you for clearing things up,once again. As I am thirilled to hear this,I'm still stunned and confused about the fall out of this. However,it truly looks like,dare I say it,,the storm clouds may be heading off elsewhere.