Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:22 pm
iowa61 wrote:First, participants on this forum have in fact outright dismissed Dr. Jantz's work and by inference his credentials and reputation and those of the peer review scholars and the scientific journal of publication.
iowa61 wrote:Second, Jantz's paper--in its entirety-which would include methodologies, integrity of data, scientific validity etc., has been peer-reviewed by scholars who are infinitely more qualified than anyone on this forum. After critiques were addressed satisfactorily the paper was then published in a prestigious academic journal.
iowa61 wrote:The participants in this forum do not seem to recognize nor appreciate that process is a very high bar indeed. They do not seem to recognize that the peer reviewers do not share their suspicions about what was and was not "left out" and for valid reason. They do not seem to recognize that the peer reviewers are quite capable of detecting fraud. They do not seem to recognize that is the whole point of rigorous, scholarly peer review.
iowa61 wrote:Moreover, there are very well established and documented protocols and standards for critique of published papers. However, they too require submissions to meet a high, scholarly bar.
Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:30 pm
Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:30 pm
Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:02 pm
Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:12 pm
Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:27 pm
PinecastleAAF wrote:One of the things the Jantz paper does to arrive at the conclusion the bones are Earhart's is assign a 10 to 1 probability that Earhart was on the island.
Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:10 am
is one of, if not the leading expert in his field. His article has been exhaustively peer-reviewed and published in an esteemed scientific journal.
Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:17 am
though I have no idea what "exhaustively peer-reviewed" might mean
Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:26 am
Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:04 pm
Tom King and Ric Gillespie read at least two drafts and offered many helpful comments. Tom also provided helpful editorial assistance. An anonymous reviewer offered several useful comments which also improved the paper.
Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:29 pm
Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:49 pm
Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:14 am
Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:31 am
Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:03 pm
David Billings wrote:For old iron:
I consider any dimensions supplied by an interested party, such as TIGHAR, should be disqualified from the inquiry...
...But, then, what do I know. I am not an expert.
DB