5 replies to this topic

[Air-run]

Hi folks,

I am excited about a manuscript I submitted today to the Development Genes and Evolution journal. It has been in the works for the last 5 months. I am not a scientist, but God led me to some very good information and helped me put together an important paper that challenges a few notions of cetacean evolution.

It became a matter of where to try and get it published. I contacted the editor of the DGandE journal and he told me the article fit the scope of the paper. Hopefully I won't run into too much opposition in that I'm not a degreed scientist and I don't belong to a scientific institution - but I've run the information by a handful of scientists and biologists and have received some positive feedback.

If you think about it, please pray that the submission process goes well - that it gets accepted by editors and passes peer review.

I'll go into more details about the paper once it gets published.

[MamaElephant]

I will include this in my prayers, friend.

[Fred Williams]

That's exiting, I'll definitely pray it goes through! Hopefully they don't find out you are a creationist...

Fred

[Air-run]

I got the comments back from the peer reviewers about a month ago.

It has the potential to be published if I follow some of the suggestions of the reviewers.

I have 2 months to edit before resubmitting it.

One nice thing is that I found a couple papers from the 1800s that I was unable to find during my first draft which provide some helpful data.

Some of the advice I got was to interpret some of the data more "balanced." They thought I might have just focused on the data that supported my conclusions and not looked at the data that refutes it.

After rereading some of the papers I cite, I don't know if I can give them the "balanced" view they are hoping for. If the data is in my favor, how am I supposed to say that it isn't?

One of the reviewers comments was that he thought I ignored a paper he was aware of - wondering if I purposely ignored the paper because it doesn't fit with my conclusions. Interestingly, I did refer to that very paper - and it doesn't refute my conclusions. It makes me wonder how thoroughly this guy read the paper.

[Chris]

Good luck, man! It's hard to have a so-called "balanced" perspective when the data clearly, unequivocally supports one conclusion instead of another. Can't go blatantly supporting the truth, can we?

[jason777]

After rereading some of the papers I cite, I don't know if I can give them the "balanced" view they are hoping for. If the data is in my favor, how am I supposed to say that it isn't?

One of the reviewers comments was that he thought I ignored a paper he was aware of - wondering if I purposely ignored the paper because it doesn't fit with my conclusions. Interestingly, I did refer to that very paper - and it doesn't refute my conclusions. It makes me wonder how thoroughly this guy read the paper.

LOL. Sorry sir, but if whale reproductive bones share no genetic or anatomical homology with mammalian legs, then should I still reference the paper?


We'll pray for a submission.


I noticed that gilbo hasn't been back or responded to my PM since his little discovery. I suspect he's writing a paper as well.




God Bless.