Hi,
on
http://fftw.org/~stevenj/Nature-reviews.doc, there is now a Microsoft
Word document describing the "errors" (in a broader sense) found by the
reviewing persons.
With this list, it is now much easier to deal with these articles. Note
that the kind of "error" varies from minor factual errors (wrong year)
to some kind of overall criticism (wrong proportions for competing
theories).
However, it should be possible to bring the number of "errors" in those
42 articles down to a much lower number (...and we can introduce brand
new ones, yeah!).
Thanks for helping out.
The folks at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December…
will be thankful for your efforts in this matter.
At de.wikipedia, I am preparing an FAQ about this review, you might want
to join or do something in your own language. There was way too much
misinterpretation done by the press (mostly "in favour" of wikipedia,
which is not a good thing).
Mathias