3 ms·
I feel you. The fact that it cleared Nature’s editorial bar suggests it’s more than a marginal observation. At minimum, the work would have needed rigorous exp
by stevenjgarner 1y ago
I feel you. The fact that it cleared Nature’s editorial bar suggests it’s more than a marginal observation. At minimum, the work would have needed rigorous experimental controls, reproducibility across multiple assays, and clear mechanistic insight. “Notability” is high, but skepticism is warranted given the mouse result.
- ac29 1y ago> The fact that it cleared Nature’s editorial bar This was published in Nature Aging, not Nature. Nature (the company) has 100+ journals, I dont think any of them are as selective as Nature (the journal). That doesn't make this a bad article or a poorly reviewed one, but I wouldnt equate it with an article published in Nature.
- layoric 1y agoIt’s almost like they are cashing in on their good name…