Anyone read a really bad paper recently?
rboehrin at vt.edu
Sat May 8 07:17:32 EST 2004
BilZ0r <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E0C31E66611BilZ0rhotmailcom at 18.104.22.168>...
> I need to write some reviewer comments on a published paper. I've found
> lots of papers which have one large glearing error, but none that have lots
> of little bad things, you know systemically bad, or really enough to fill
> more than 100 words.
> Anyone got anything really offensive, you know, no stats, or even better,
> in correct stats, bad grammer, self-contradictory results, or mislabeled
There is a paper by Rosen and Harry that is wrong in nearly all
aspects. It is called something like Brain Volume Estimation from a
serial section measurements: a comparison of methodologies.
Here are the problems:
1. The formulas are mislabeled
2. The mathematical requirements of the formulas are incorrect
3. Does not consider the issue of bias
4. Does apply overprojection correctly
The clue that something is wrong is evident in figure 2. In that
figure the issue of overprojection correction is wrong.
Overprojection means that the estimate is too big. A correction for
that condition should result in a smaller number, right. Got it.
Number too big. Make the number smaller. In figure 2 the corrected
values are larger.
I was going to dismiss the paper until I saw the figure. Then I had
to take a close look and find out how that could happen. That was
when I discovered how poorly this paper was done.
This has to be the worst paper I have encountered in years.
More information about the Neur-sci