Two recent examples on PubPeer show that journals with impact factors >10 can publish obviously absolute garbage. Their procedures don't seem to have included a step where a human read the manuscript...
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is some terrific peer review
-
It's exactly what I expect from a leading journal
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm going to go out on a leg and suggest some correlation with skin wrinkles too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Age presented great variation for those with 'no alopecia, whereas those with severe AGA presented an older age distribution and median" and "The prevalence of age-matched men in a similar white population was estimated to be 31% to 53%" What's missing?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Amazing
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.


