imo, it’s more stupid that there’s no mainstream news coverage about this ruling against FDA. i haven’t found a single site reporting about it. you?
imo, it’s more stupid that there’s no mainstream news coverage about this ruling against FDA. i haven’t found a single site reporting about it. you?
Must be because of what i posted.
instead of the article being scrutenized (and educating people on how to detect pseudoscience) the post got removed.
At least i got a nice reply showing what was someone’s reason for doubting the scientific process of that publisher… before it got moderated.
Maybe it’s possible to use a flags of some sort, to indicate that, even though it’s a scientific publication and was peer reviewed, that this Lemmy community thinks it’s a bad piece. (but not by up/downvote as a downvote means it goes to the end of the pile, and the education effect is lost)
Like, i want to put this article under your attention, so that i get an idea of what others think about it https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282 But i’m afraid to post it, because of the possible backlash(i.e. moderation and maybe banning?)
Thanks. yes i realized the last one, and know of his work.
Looking at the “method”, it doesn’t look like rocket-science. I’d like to know, is the publication itself a fraud or not?
Thanks for the tip.
The internet page says “Potential predatory scholarly open-access journals”
So i hope at least a few read the paper and assess their method
It says the frontier models weren’t changed though… Do you think this introduction ending is incorrect?