Here, from the Wiki article I already pointed out, since you didn't read it:
The Czerkases contacted paleontologist Phil Currie, who contacted the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The National Geographic Society intended to get the fossil formally published in the peer-reviewed science journal Nature, and then follow up immediately with a press conference and an issue of National Geographic.[6] Editor Bill Allen asked that all members of the project keep the fossil secret, so that the magazine would have a scoop on the story.
My guess? Mr. Currie told NatGeo what the scientific community had heard rumors about, then NatGeo flipped it around for coverage. You can't exactly contact them and just say "hey, we have another fossil" and they will be intrigued. No, he would have had to say "I think we MAY have an important fossil, but it has yet to be studied".
IF that is the case, shame on NatGeo.
Here, further down, we have this:
Currie in the first week of September sent his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, to the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding to prepare the fossil for better study. Aulenback concluded that the fossil was "a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens...with a maximum...of five...separate specimens", but the Czerkases angrily denied this and Aulenbeck only reported this to Currie. Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.[7]
So the guy who just dumped 80k in this fossil, can't accept it is fake, and Currie doesn't report to NatGeo, and why should he?
Furthermore:
On August 20 Nature rejected the paper, indicating to the Czerkases that National Geographic had refused to delay publication, leaving too little time for peer review. The authors then submitted the paper to Science, which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed Science that "the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased" and that the fossil had been "doctored" in China "to enhance its value." Science then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, the Czerkases did not inform National Geographic about the details of the two rejections.[6]
By that time the November issue of National Geographic was already in preparation for printing, but "Archaeoraptor" was never formally published in any peer-reviewed journal.
It was REJECTED by both Nature and Science, was never accepted by the peer review board, and NatGeo went ahead and published anyways since they had not been informed that it was rejected. NatGeo should have checked up on it.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
