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
"Mathias Schindler" wrpte
There was way too much misinterpretation done by the press (mostly "in favour" of wikipedia, which is not a good thing).
True. But having looked at the kind of 'error' we are talking about, I'm reassured. It is clear that the reviewers (of high calibre, where names are those I know) were highly variable in what they picked up on. Some at least of the points were simply pedantic, and it is inevitable to get some of those, unless you write in the style of an academic paper.
Charles