What happens then is that your peers will read that paper and either say "Excellent! Proves a point" or "I think you'll find that "this" and "that" have incorrect data" or some may ask to look at thereadings, reports or whatever to double check.
With a data base of thousands of reports you are NOT going to find a UFO publication that will publish it. I'm guessing it would be a few hundred pages long.
So, you send free copies via the internet to researchers or, less cumbersome and far more useful, the sections pertaining to their countries. They can read through the listings and responses might be:
(1) "Case 007 is a proven hoax/psychological/misidentification" -in which case you would need to know how/who proved it to be a such because that is vital for the data base.
(2) "Case 007 I have never heard of!" In which case the report source/details are sent to that person to check or look into and see what they come up with.
Having to correct a data base is not something that should bruise an ego. Even if it sounded like a great case the whole point is that if it is a hoax/psychological / misidentification then is is erroneous data and to continue to use it or promote it puts you in a category of Charlatan. Flim Flam man. And wholly untrustworthy.
I know that identifying hoaxes or misidentifications makes me unpopular. So what?
per cognitionem veritatis -Through Knowledge: Truth
If you want to accept that hypnosis has produced nothing but 100% truth for Ufologists to study and that millions of alien hybrids are walking about and that the all powerful "Greys" are in charge (well, hypnosis has 'proven' they aren't now...who'll be in charge next?) go ahead. There's a 'face' on Cydonia, Mars you will love.
Myself -I want to find the truth based on true evidence or testimony.
In Ufology, as in Cryptozoology, the paranormal, etc., that is not the done thing. Tough.
and if you don't get the point of the bug photo.....