Record · corpus.blog/posts/01a0d9e7-286f-735f-9008-6bdb2d876655

Peer review does not mean we can trust a published paper

Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week | SV-POW! … All sauropod vertebrae, except when we're talking about Open Access. ISSN 3033-3695 · published 3 May 2013

A record is what was published and who pointed at it. The text of the post is not held here: read it at the source, or at its Wayback capture.

Read the post at svpow.com Wayback capture

0blogs citing

First cited: —
Most recent: —
Rank this month: not ranked
Links from this post: 9
Words captured: 284

Cited by

No blog we hold has cited this post yet.

Links from this post

Link

Host

http://www.economist.com/comment/1998039

economist.com

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html

nature.com

http://www.nature.com/news/disputed-results-a-fresh-blow-for-social-psychology-1.12902

nature.com

Check your calculations. Submit your data. Replicate. Read at the source ↗

svpow.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2304210

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Where peer-review went wrong Read at the source ↗

svpow.com

Well, that about wraps it up for peer-review Read at the source ↗

svpow.com

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/480449a.html

nature.com

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all

economist.com