With papers such as this https://t.co/95yDpOoZaA getting through peer review, think twice before submitting to @PLOSONE
Creacionismo y diseño inteligente en artículo publicado en PlosOne! https://t.co/P1erJcAGhw
PLoS published evidence defence of creationism. Huh?! https://t.co/2DBiv11sK1
on what planet is "the mystery of the Creator’s invention" a sentence you want to read in a scientific journal? https://t.co/fLOHQwDuGp
https://t.co/PIc2vU2xzr What "scientific" journal does "The Creator" read to see how his/her "intelligent design" of the hand is doing?
https://t.co/IRgzY6RNOC What the....?!
Yet another example of poor editorial judgement. No one thought to ask if the poor authors really meant 'creator'? https://t.co/DSTtGIVyeo
Apparently PLOS One thinks there's a "creator"; could science sink lower? https://t.co/lUITNO7rmd
The journal PLOS ONE published a scientific article that makes direct reference to a creator and intelligent design. https://t.co/RWr750xHH7
Look for "Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention" WOW! https://t.co/kag3KL6mMW
Trouble over at PLOS ONE with use of the 'C word' near the end of the abstract. See also reader comments. https://t.co/008iQKq1QT
PLOS ONE publishes a biomechanics study concluding "proper design by the Creator".... oopsies! https://t.co/NstOKx4HSO
PLOS ONE article suggests the existence of a "creator" to explain the complexity of nature https://t.co/o4xrvTFfeq WTF!??!
Unbelievable mistake in the scientific journal PLOS One. Abstract references "The Creator". https://t.co/RnSYgVBiS8 #atheism
PLOS One has a problem. Check out the abstract and comments on this article: https://t.co/UQFEtFdtUX
Ouch! The comments on this journal are scathing. https://t.co/A0VZfvj5mF
Sooo, PlosONE totally published an ID paper... Sigh. https://t.co/Weg6No8n4D
How on Earth did this rubbish get past peer review?https://t.co/PpnNqdulEZ
This PlosOne Creationist hand drama is amazing!... https://t.co/gXfGcPgBFh