Update: PLOS ONE apologizes for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper. https://t.co/tqlvWtUB93
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
Respuesta (creacionista) de un autor del artículo a un comentario crítico: https://t.co/c4STQGSstA
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
Notification from PLOS Staff (acerca del artículo creacionista) https://t.co/zNbL0ZHDtv
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!??!