This paper was published in Scientific Reports. This is a lower tier Nature series journal where Nature = flagship; Nature XXXX (where XXXX is Neuroscience,

This paper was published in Scientific Reports. This is a lower tier Nature series journal where Nature = flagship; Nature XXXX (where XXXX is Neuroscience, Genetics, Methods, Metabolism…) makes up specialized second tier; Nature Communications is a second or third tier non-specialized series journal (but still high impact) Scientific Reports is nominal third or fourth tier. But take this with a large dose of skepticism. The text, code, data, and metadata, are the true metrics if quality and generality of results. And from my own work: if a study involves rodent models check if the authors studied just one type of mouse or rat. If so then consider most biological claims as provisional n=1 efforts. Unfortunately the reductionist mindset has won the day and last five decades. This is almost always true in neuroscience and genomics, fields in which well over 90% of science relies on the C57BL/6 mouse or the SD rat. As a result, claims may be exceedingly fragile—like doing all human studies with a single clone of one specific human. Yes, it is nuts. Rwilliams@uthsc.edu