I do not understand why we are all piling on one paper. Is there anything obviously wrong with it, aside from personal views on length? Any data anomalies or suggestion of fabrication? If not, read it or do not, don’t go at the authors. Please be kind. Please.
@jdpereira It’s a glaring example from field I don’t think is useful or can ever be useful. It’s flashy technology and a lot of information but there’s no substance to it.
@Unsubstantiated Fair to criticize, just not reasonable to start a bunch of ad hominem attacks…
@jdpereira Unfortunately, that trait seems to be too often lacking in academia as well as in everyday life.
@jdpereira Yes! There is clearly something wrong here. Nothing with the authors. It's with the review time—2 years! This, along with the length of the SI, suggests a practice we all deal with, but pretend it's not there... (1/2)
@jdpereira I totally agree and thank you for saying that. I have no issue with people pointing out various specific issues, but criticizing length (or even the length of authors' comment on the issue on Twitter) is something that I find hard to understand. 1/2