My failed attempt at irony aside, I agree, thanks for bringing this interesting piece to the list. Here is the direct link to the publication, published open access.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201&ct=1 ryan On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Thanks for posting this. Recently on another mailing list (FISHFOLK) there > was a related discussion dealing with peer review sparked by a paper by Ray > Hilborn, > http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/large_pelagics/Hilborn_2006(faith).pdf, > which I also recommend. It addressed the issue of whether the peer review > process of such journals really guarantees quality, or whether the journals > are mainly interested in making news. > > Bill Silvert > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Hobbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:59 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Publish and be wrong? > > > > Thought this was really interesting! I would only add that it's those high >> profile studies published in Science or Nature that attract a lot of >> opposition by fellow scientists. >> >> Jim >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: "Robert Lusardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: December 3, 2008 8:57:19 PM PST >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Publish and be wrong? >>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >> Hi all- below please find a link to the Economist article I referenced >>> during lab meeting this morning. Interesting stuff. >>> >>> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376658 >>> >>> --Rob >>> >> -- Ryan McEwan The University of Dayton http://academic.udayton.edu/RyanMcEwan
