Edit: okay, going with this description.
Lk99 must be mentioned in the research section table of contents. Either pro or con. From any researcher. It also counts if the body of the article mentions lk-99 or an unambiguous reference to qerc or materials brought to prominence by the lk-99 papers.
Here's an example ToC. Nature publishes weekly and it appears that the ToC is always online. https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/620
It only counts if mentioned in a scientific context, not just as an example of problems with science or failures of the process.
EDIT: I think this is implied, but the start date is the creation of this claim
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ52 | |
| 2 | Ṁ26 | |
| 3 | Ṁ21 | |
| 4 | Ṁ20 | |
| 5 | Ṁ10 |
People are also trading
@AdamTreat yeah. People who believe there is no consensus yet can just say that the consensus is still forming, that's why it's not mentioned.
The real question might be on how we interpret silence?
@StrayClimb silence after an initial claim comes out can be treated more innocently, but a month out i think it becomes clear that the silence isn't good for the side doing the claiming of a big result
@AdamTreat I agree. The YES side seems to interpret silence as "they're still researching"
many situations where all evidence is interpreted good for YES
To me if inclusion in nature & conferences is a good sign, then not being included has got to be mapped to bad, you can't have it both ways. But we need to operationalize that
@StrayClimb continued silence is bad for the yes side in the main market, continued papers with lk-99 are strong indication that research is still needed/still happening. If science or nature publish more things lk-99 related until the end of the year it will be clear that right now there is no consensus. If they (or other high impact journals in the area) publish nothing of relevance it will be clear the consensus has been reached.
At the end of the year we will know if and when a consensus was reached but right now it is too soon. The dust as not settled yet.
@JoaoPedroSantos ah cool, so if nature published nothing further through 2023 that would push your YES estimate lower? Or would you need more to go through 2024?
@StrayClimb nature, science or other relevant journals. Basically my Yes position is constantly going down the longer we go without good news. Lack of research on the topic is a big signal things are over yes.