3 ms·
> This is a letter to the editor, and is not peer-reviewed True enough. On the other hand, they did publish it, which I'm positive they don't do with letters
by Turing_Machine 5y ago
> This is a letter to the editor, and is not peer-reviewed
True enough.
On the other hand, they did publish it, which I'm positive they don't do with letters they believe are pure crackpottery, or otherwise without merit (of which I'm sure they get their share).
- bioinformatics 5y ago>On the other hand, they did publish it, which I'm positive they don't do with letters they believe are pure crackpottery You probably never read anything published on Nature and Science.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoYou probably don't know what you're talking about.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoRight. He directly violates the HN rules, and I get modded down. He posted a dismissive snark about my (substantive) comment, and I replied in kind. Edit: For the record, I've read plenty of papers in both Nature and Science, so his claim that I haven't is objectively incorrect. My response stands: he doesn't know what he's talking about.
- skwb 5y agoFWIW I have seen lots of trash in Nature and Science.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoYou haven't seen outright conspiracy theories, though.