I'll jump in re [2] with, I guess, a sociology of science comment. You seem to have very strong feelings about this paper, for some reason, but accusing the au

I'll jump in re [2] with, I guess, a sociology of science comment. You seem to have very strong feelings about this paper, for some reason, but accusing the authors of, basically, fraud (i.e. publishing what is an obvious garbage to an expert) is way too harsh. Peer review cannot catch a deliberate falsification of data, but a BS interpretation (especially an "obviously" BS one) will be dealt with mercilessly. You can try and argue that the senior author on that particular paper has enough clout to bend the editors of Nature, but I don't see what would he gain from that. So my guess is that you take a strong position on this paper because it contradicts some favorite idea of yours, but the opposite view is not "obviously" wrong.