5 ms·

I wouldn't trust anything from that website. That scientific journal sounds sketchy, too

• JdeBP 8y ago
  It is at least, according to Elsevier, peer reviewed. * https://www.elsevier.com/journals/progress-in-biophysics-and-molecular-biology/0079-6107/guide-for-authors#20910 https://www.elsevier.com/journals/progress-in-biophysics-and...
  • nicodjimenez 8y ago
    Elsevier getting desperate lol
    • _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      The well-known Elsevier linguistics journal Lingua had an editor revolt (reconstituted as Glossa, not published by Elsevier), but Elsevier continues to publish a 'zombie' Lingua.
  • jonny_eh 8y ago
    Every pseudo-scientific journal claims to be peer reviewed.
    • JdeBP 8y ago
      However, so too do the properly scientific ones, so that does not demonstrate anything at all. The thing to look at is the editors, who they are and whether they indeed edit the journal as claimed. * https://www.bioc.cam.ac.uk/research/uto/blundell https://www.bioc.cam.ac.uk/research/uto/blundell * https://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/team/denis-noble https://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/team/denis-noble * http://www.herzzentrum.de/englisch/departments-sections/institute-for-experimental-cardiovascular-medicine/team/peter-kohl-prof-dr.html http://www.herzzentrum.de/englisch/departments-sections/inst...
      • jonny_eh 8y ago
        > so that does not demonstrate anything at all. That's exactly my point!
  • a1369209993 8y ago
    Peer review doesn't help if your peers are also cranks.
  • DrScump 8y ago
    Or at least pier-reviewed. I, for one, welcome our new cephalopod overlords.