3 ms·
I believe when this was published the review was also published, or at least part of it, because I recall that one of the reviewers had pointed out that he had
by mnky9800n 3y ago
I believe when this was published the review was also published, or at least part of it, because I recall that one of the reviewers had pointed out that he had biased his model by leaving out the stuff he left out. Which means he needed to argue why he left it out, which seemed rather duplicitous to me at the time. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
- tomgp 3y agoYeah, thats correct. He also threw his co-authors (many early in their career and now potentially reputationally compromised by association) under the bus to get his moment in the spotlight before leaving academy. The whole thing was pretty unedifying.
- mimd 3y agoThe reviewer's criticism didn't stop the article from being published. Sure, they didn't recommend it initially but that happens. I'd call it somewhat mild attention to other factors from the one reviewer. The pointing out of issues in data balance, why an nn model, are also good criticism. Here's the review page if anyone wants to read it. https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-06444-3/MediaObjects/41586_2023_6444_MOESM2_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415... So the question becomes, is his claim of leaving out other factors not greatly influencing and it's just a grift and/or is nature's review process a dog and pony show?
- favorited 3y agoAnd the epidemiologist mentioned at the bottom of the article said COVID lockdowns would enable a U.S. President to use the military to establish themself as dictator. But this is the WSJ editorial page, which isn't exactly well-regarded, even by the rest of the WSJ... "WSJ Journalists Ask Publisher for Clearer Distinction Between News and Opinion Content" (https://archive.ph/te5Bd https://archive.ph/te5Bd)