From the Washington Post...

[Superomaha Cat]

Interesting article from the WaPo that indicated 40 % of the 21 peer reviewed studies from Science magazine and Nature Magazine between 2010 and 2015 which they attempted to reproduce could not be done. There was also a 27% difference in the magnitude of the results in the 60% of studies that could be reproduced. A rather stunning quote from one of the researchers was along the lines that peer review is not an indicator of accuracy. The pressure to publish drives researchers to overclaim.

 

[ducearewildcat]

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

 

[Superomaha Cat]

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

 

[Superomaha Cat]

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

 

[ducearewildcat]

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

 

[ducearewildcat]

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.