Peer 4
Here is another one in the same area which I commented on. It uses the same dodge to make its radiation dose appear lower than it actually is...
Here is another one in the same area which I commented on. It uses the same dodge to make its radiation dose appear lower than it actually is...
The silence is deafening. And my concerns about the rigour of peer review at Scientific Reports continues to deepen after seeing several other pubs there that don't pass the sniff test...
There are much more serious problems with this article than statistical methods. There are fundamental issues of experimental design. Fundamental concepts of radiation science are violated...
Peer 1 is entirely correct. The analyses of 'proportional mortality' data in this study are deeply flawed and entirely spurious. A general binomial confidence interval around the 3 Apollo deaths from…
Points (mostly non-overlapping with my previous comments) that call into question the methodology and conclusions of Delp et al:Francis A...
My previous post is about the significance (rather the non-significance) of the effect. The process the authors undertook is often derogatorily characterized as data dredging or p-hacking...
I saw this paper covered in several news articles. I noticed immediately in Table 2 that the key category ("Apollo Lunar Astronauts") that their main conclusion is based upon has only 7 individuals…