[WikiEN-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica ReviewTackles Nature Methods

[charles matthews]

 "Steve Bennett" wrote

>> Britannica also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original
> data on which the study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's
>> editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they
>> declined.

>If true, that's very poor on Nature's part.

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.

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.

Rather short-sighted, in fact, in that alienating Nature probably is more 
likely to make it repeat the exercise.

Charles