Anyone read a really bad paper recently?
rboehrin at vt.edu
Sat May 8 12:19:18 EST 2004
fburton at nyx10.nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote in message news:<1084021902.331282 at irys.nyx.net>...
> In article <b0561e71.0405080417.79e886fd at posting.google.com>,
> bob <rboehrin at vt.edu> wrote:
> >This has to be the worst paper I have encountered in years.
> Are all Rosen and Harry's papers substandard?
I do not know. All I know is that this paper should never have made
it through a peer review process. I read the paper since it was
recommended to me by the author. The paper has been cited as evidence
that a certain methodology should be followed. It is this cascade
effect that is the real problem.
In another paper I saw a single sentence suggesting that even if you
do your work wrong the right answer pops out anyways. This has been
taken as gospel by people examingin astrocytes to avoid the proper
procedure. So now a group of people are producing bad results.
If you are interested in the Rosen paper I can send you a link to a
place that reconsiders the issues and does the work correctly.
More information about the Neur-sci