Published, no less, in Nature. Except that this is, of course, a shameless plug for the Science Creative Quarterly, which today has a convincing fake/joke paper on the subject.
And how can one be certain that it's fake? Easy - just look at the author of the paper.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Alright, it's 2007, and already I'm feeling the soft squeeze of all the different things that need tending to. In fact, there are two comics at the Science Creative Quarterly today that, perhaps to greater extremes, emulate my current mood (i.e. this is what it feels like when you've effectively…
I've frequently noted that one of the things most detested by quacks and promoters of pseudoscience is peer review. Creationists hate peer review. HIV/AIDS denialists hate it. Anti-vaccine cranks like those at Age of Autism hate it. Indeed, as blog bud Mark Hoofnagle Mark Hoofnagle, pointed out…
I alluded to this on Twitter, and meant to leave that be, but the other thing I was going to blog today didn't come together, and I probably shouldn't leave a cryptic tweet as my only comment. So...
One of the links getting passed around a lot in my social-media circles is this Tumblr post from Ben…
Over at the ARN blog, Denyse O'Leary has a four-part article up attacking the peer-review system. Rob Crowther, of the Discovery Institute's
Media Complaints Division, has chimed in with his own post on the topic. There's a great deal of humor in watching anti-evolutionists try to dismiss peer…