JonnyMcA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ive been through the process myself (both as
> submitter and reviewer) quite a few times so know
> all about it. The editor can turn away a paper
> for many reasons, such as they deem it not
> appropriate or prestigious enough for their
> journal, or that they dont think it fits the remit
> of the journal, or they think the thing bonkers
> and fringe work.
>
> The actual raw data in this case though is quite
> strong, since this is data that is used by
> geophysicists around the world, and ice core
> workers accept the validity of them. Just try
> suggesting to them that they are dated
> incorrectly! To the american ice core workers,
> those ammonium peaks are exactly upon those baktun
> dates.
>
> What i think was the issue was that this was
> suggesting something that in this particular year
> is deemed taboo. In other words, my feeling is
> that it smelled too much like 2012 hysteria.
> Personally I would like to see more robust
> arguments in the paper (which probably also didnt
> help its chances to get past the editors), but you
> have to work with what you have got, and I know
> Mike was just wanting to get it published so that
> people could look at it and examine critically
> with more knowledge in the area than himself.
>
> Jonny
>
>
>
> The path to good scholarship is paved with
> imagined patterns. - David M Raup
The problem is that often people in different fields just don't know enough about the Maya to make a plausible argument. For example, as I will later post, the Maya's primary motivation in calendrics was to harmonize as many different cycles as possible (260, 360, 584 (Venus), etc.) not necessarily to commemorate physical events.
Bernard