It seems significant that there's a deluge of obfuscated noise published in Nature/Cell/Science/NEJM (e.g. Poore 2020) and all the very tedious work debunk/debug/refute ends up as blog posts, pubpeer posts and in the very best case in mBio (eg journals.asm.org/doi/full/10....)
Selection bias is for real We only print high impact! Send us your most _incredible_ work!
Although not qualified to have an opinion, I’m starting to wonder if alchemy isn’t more credible than biology. 🧫 🧙
If there's not German word for squeezing an artifact until it oozes tenure, there should be. www.nature.com/articles/nat...
Debate highlights pitfalls in interpreting genomic data.
I’m impressed by the Salzberg group for doing this work. Completely agree there needs to be a better way to reward this type of work. There’s no follow up project or grant to write. It’s just a service to correct the record.