This comment made by Matt on Cryptomundo has been given it's own thread. Visit Cryptomundo for the full text.
Heard from a reliable source connected with an article reviewer for Nature (a major science journal published in the UK) that the Ketchum paper was handed back (i.e. not *rejected*) for several reasons.
One of the reasons: The paper “does not contain a testable hypothesis”. Not that the paper writers forgot to include something … It’s apparently more an issue of what is, and what is not, “testable” … and it’s a very technical matter that may not be resolved any time soon …
Matt Moneymaker
Read the rest of the entry here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment