11 Responses

  1. drjon
    drjon February 13, 2013 at 7:52 am |

    I’ll accept it when i see it. ;}P>

    On the other hand, i’m looking forward very much to seeing it. :}D>

  2. MullettMan
    MullettMan February 13, 2013 at 8:49 am |

    The paper is live now. I’m tempted to pay the $30 fee to download a copy…

  3. Insanity
    Insanity February 13, 2013 at 10:52 am |

    It does seem unusual that the site is virtually brand new and this is Vol 1 of the journal.

    If self-published as some suggestions say, it still may not be readily accepted.

  4. Red Pill Junkie
    Red Pill Junkie February 13, 2013 at 11:05 am |

    What do we know about Ketchum’s co-authors?

  5. AreWeThereYeti
    AreWeThereYeti February 13, 2013 at 11:17 am |

    Finally, the wait is over and there is “something” to review.

    Now, I guess I’ll wait while greater minds than mine parse the published results and wrangle over the findings.

    I must admit, though, the origins of the “new” DeNovo Journal give me pause.

    Oh well, let the debate re Patty’s Coming-Out Party begin!

  6. Red Pill Junkie
    Red Pill Junkie February 13, 2013 at 11:18 am |

    It seems that Ketchum et al launched this new journal specifically to publish the paper. It does raise suspicion.

  7. CaveManKenny
    CaveManKenny February 14, 2013 at 8:59 am |

    Folks I wouldn’t Jump to conclusions here. This is an amazing amount work and can be easy for some to judge others when we live in a I want it now world. Take a deep breath, now let it out. Remember her career rides on this lets read it. If we need help breaking down the science end, we will get it. Most Important Have a great day. Thank you Ken Gentry, Veneta, Or.

  8. dredwards
    dredwards February 14, 2013 at 11:07 am |

    Hi, just wanted to add a few pros and cons….as someone who has family relations in the scientific field, who publish in scientific peer reviewed journals, I’d like to say some of Dr. Ketchum’s stuff seems good, some weird, here is what I mean:

    1–It is a long and tedious process for anyone trying to publish, no matter how strong the paper….just because an article passes peer review does not mean a journal has to publish it, according to Dr Ketchum, the journal’s lawyers advised them against publishing it, as it would ruin their reputations, that is possible.

    2–Buying a journal is a little weird, though not totally, and in this case, its possible that Dr. Ketchum saw no other way to get this stuff out, and, if this pans out to be the biggie it could be, it could allow future cutting edge discoveries an outlet to be published. This may be a good thing for the crypto world. According to Dr. Ketchum the paper did pass peer review before the journal was purchased, which means basically purchasing their web site, subscriptions, email list etc. Also, she did say on Coast to Coast that if it wasn’t published she would find a way to get the material posted on the web…maybe this is it, and can help others out in the future too.

    3–The short video posted is part of the paper, submitted as supporting material, however, just my opinion, but I think at this point, if one was going to put something out there, it should really be something convincing, its a nice video, but not definitive of a new creature existing….still, its her choice…

    4–It would be nice to see what the reviewers said, if the evidence is indisputable or questionable…it passed peer review, but by how much? With flying colors? Were there any skeptics on the review committee and what did they say?

    Anyway, thats just what I think, and I just felt like putting it out there:)

  9. Enano
    Enano February 14, 2013 at 6:09 pm |

    I don’t understand where all the hatred being leveled at Melba is coming from. Most people haven’t read the paper and the few bloggers who have and have posted about it aren’t qualified to weigh in on it. Getting a paper published is often more of a political exercise than a scientific one and the subject matter and the fact that Melba doesn’t work for a university makes publication in any “legitimate” journal near impossible.

  10. Tria MacLeod
    Tria MacLeod February 14, 2013 at 8:12 pm |

    Ars Technica got a copy of the paper and has some interesting info up, they are sending it on to sequencing specialists for their take as well.

    I don’t know what to think at this point. The fact that they claim the human interbreeding took place 13k years ago yet they have several different types of human mtDNA (Native American, Middle Eastern, European, etc) doesn’t make any sense at all. Native Americans should have been the only humans here at that time. Even if you go with the land bridge, ancient explorer theory it still brings too many different regions into play. And why didn’t they concentrate on the non-human primate DNA that was found, I’d be quite curious to see what it most closely matched.

  11. Mausinn
    Mausinn February 15, 2013 at 9:45 am |

    Going to De Novo’s page, I find a disturbing little tidbit. All printed names for the publication are “DeNovo”, however, their copyright bug states DeVono Publishing. Is this just their being sloppy? If so, how much else is sloppy in their publishing efforts?

Comments are closed.