@markmccaughrean I'm looking at a Nature paper that builds on the papers you did with Pearson. Are your papers still in peer-review purgatory? (Or is my google foo failing me?)
Yes, they're both in peer review still, albeit the "fault" lies on our side. We've been working on revising them for many months, particularly with an extensive reanalysis of the JuMBOs after (helpful) comments from the referees.
The good news is that we're just about to resubmit that paper, probably tomorrow, & the other will follow rapidly after.
I think the Sagan aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here & although it has meant a lot of time & effort, I think the referees were right to demand a much more robust analysis given how bonkers the objects seem to be.
Hopefully the revised paper will convince them that it should be published.
@starstryder We also need spectroscopy to confirm them though & while we have some with JWST now, the main observation failed thanks to guide star acquisition problems.
We're hopeful we've solved that & can get a second go later this year when Orion is available again.
(There are also things to be said about proprietary periods & the intense pressure to publish data from new telescopes, but that's for another time, perhaps.)
Add comment