4 ms·
> 11 March 2021 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A fu
by mgalgs 6y ago
> 11 March 2021 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow once all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.
- GenerocUsername 6y agoWhen the science doesn't match your preconceived notions
- 542458 6y agoYou don’t know that was the issue. There may be other (more or equally valid) scientific data that contradicts the article, or there may be flaws in the analysis. Looking at the article, is about a computer model that somebody built - these are incredibly easy to (intentionally or unintentionally) bias, and I’d say that looking at this critically is entirely appropriate.
- igorstellar 6y agoArticle like this takes months to put in. It takes one minute to put this disclaimer basically cancelling the article with "but we will tell you why we're cancelling it later".
- goalieca 6y agoTrained scientists are capable of reading any article with a healthy dose of skepticism and does not need to be reminded of this for any paper. All papers have limitations and just because it is published even in a prestigious journal does not make it true. I think this notice exists for the casual reader and reporter and I also doubt the message would have been posted if it did not counter public policy.
- nthot 6y agoReading through the abstract it immediately doesn’t appear that they are using the correct statistical test to come to the conclusion they are claiming. Like another comment says, it takes minutes to criticize what takes months to make, so I’ll read through the article and work through how they came to their methodology before saying more.