I've been saying for a long time that that 'journal' that published the meteorite microbes story was a joke: now someone who has also published in the JoC gives us a look at the review process there. It's not very rigorous, as you might expect.
She also gives a good mineralogical explanation of the structures they were seeing (see also Ian Musgrave's summary). This paper's dead, Jim. But don't be surprised if you see it cited in other papers from the fringe astrobiology crowd in the future.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
You all know that the Journal of Cosmology is complete crap, right? In addition to some of the worst web design ever — it looks like a drunk clown puked up his fruit loops onto a grid of 1990s-style tables — the content is ridiculous, predictable, and credulous. Their big thing is seeing life in…
If you read Alex Bradley's guest post calling into question the claims of the recent Science paper stating the existence of microbes that can substitute arsenic for phosphorus in their DNA you might be wondering what to take away from it all, if the scientists can't even agree on whether the study…
For some reason, I can't seem to escape Chicken McNuggets. About a month ago, I expressed my complete amusement over an "investigation" of Chicken McNuggets done by everyone's favorite crank and quackery promoter, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com. I'm tellin' ya, it…
John Mashey offered some good advice in a comment on my post on the War on Gore. I'm following Michael Tobis' example and boosting it from comments.
Editorial and News
Editorial and news really are often quite separate, with the Wall Street Journal as an extreme case. I get it for the numerous…