On 3/22/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Well, I have read the detailed analyses of errors,
with the names of the
reviewers, in a document a link to which was posted to this list. I wonder
what more they wanted.
They wanted access to the actual documents constructed by Nature, on
which it based its review. Apparently, Nature cobbled together bits
from various different articles to produce "comparable" articles.
Wanting access to those new documents seems reasonable to me.
There's an odd idea in the EB document. They had
'peer review', except that
of course it wasn't: those reviewing would for the most part be of greater
academic distinction than those writing the articles. Now they want to
second-guess all that. But not by getting a 'better' peer review done.
More by meeting with Nature, and trying for retractions.
Yes, I don't believe that scientific studies are generally
"retracted". If they were really science-friendly, they would be
asking someone else to repeat the experiment, or at the least review
it. Rather than simply attacking it themselves and asking nicely for
it to be buried under the carpet.
Rather short-sighted, in fact, in that alienating
Nature probably is more
likely to make it repeat the exercise.
Yes. "We love nature. That's why we're suing the World Nature Fund..."
Steve