|
|
|
|
|
|
by rsfern
1611 days ago
|
|
|
For context, this journal uses crowd sourced open peer review, which is an interesting concept. There’s one review, and it’s (IMO) not substantive. I would treat this as a preprint basically (not that you shouldn’t read peer reviewed studies critically either) |
|
|
Can't emphasize this enough. The MMR autism fraud paper that started the anti-vaccine industry was peer reviewed in the Lancet.
It's unfortunate that the critical thinking skills needed to know good research from bad aren't drilled into us as part of the core curriculum for every high school student.