1. The Tyranny of Formatting The vision for 2014 is off by at least 10 years, but compelling.
It is even worse when you realise that most of the time we are still reviewing these god-awful things in “manuscript format” where the reference are 10 pages down and the figures are split off from the captions &c. We pay the cost of formatting for submission and do not even get most of the benefits.
By the way, kudos to PeerJ on this matter:
We include reference formatting as a guide to make it easier for editors, reviewers, and PrePrint readers, but will not strictly enforce the specific formatting rules as long as the full citation is clear.
Styles will be normalized by us if your manuscript is accepted.
2. a href=”http://incubator.rockefeller.edu/?p=1256″>Want women in science, pay postdocs more
This is a probably wrong, but interesting, argument. (But, as a male postdoc, I’m all for the pay postdocs more.)
Probably the authors did a few manipulations to try to get the P value below 5% and failed. So, it is really non-significant.
4. Journalists have this expression that a story may be too good to check. It’s probably not true, but you just found such a good story that you don’t want to check before publishing.
Bioinformaticians should start talking about stories that are too good to debug. The Mad Scientist posts about exactly such stories
The answer is maybe.