EPMAG

vox populi, vox rei

OK, the full review was found too much aggressive toward the author and the referees and the editor. Concerning the staff of Organogenesis I must say that they done the worst job, I’m aware of, while reviewing and accepting this paper.

I hope that no biologist was involved in the review process and that the editor that handled the paper didn’t read it carefully. If some bioscientist read the paper carefully and didn’t found the flaws all I can suggest is a battery of cognitive tests, ASAP.
The « sandwich » is one of the horrible examples of ignorance the author displayed and the review process didn’t corrected. Shame on them.
Credibility of the journal may be evaluated as the inverse of the number of flaws you will be able to spot.

The model is flawed. No crack propagation to explain the PS progress (the basal lamina is present below it ’till stage 3), prepaterning of the PS before it’s formation (recent data), no « four vortices » visible on the epiblast, no vortices in the mesoderm, mesodermal cells migration patterns falsely described, etc.

As MarkCC put it [edit Agathi; he never read things completely?]:

Invalid models do not produce valid results. Stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Do not get your paper published in a decent journal. Do get laughed at by people who aren’t clueless jackasses.

I’ll add:

  • Journals that publish such papers do not pass go, do not collect subscriptions and aren’t available from decent libraries. Even if the editorial board have the illusion of publishing interesting stuff, on the basis of inappropriate review.
  • Invalid models can’t produce anything valid, especially theories.
    Down the drain gone Fleury’s theory.

I’ll keep this paper easily accessible, as it’s the only one I have seen where the author states that the problem discussed isn’t analytically tractable while he claims an analytically exact description of it. (do you need to be an expert to find that suspicious?)

People that offered « time will tell » as the final remark should reconsider their standards. One shouldn’t leave flawed theories persist in scientific grounds as they disqualify not only their authors but also their environment, including those tolerant by ignorance. That explain why just after posting my memo to the library, to avoid a subscription to Organogenesis, I cleaned my blogroll at C&C. I don’t like to link to « time will tell » users.

I consider that I done my share. F*ck V »I »F, his flawed model, his silly theory, his genetics and evolution denialism, and those stupid enough to consider them, either to build more stupid theories on them, e.g. Jean Staune, or respectfully, believing that tolerance of stupidity is equivalent to good manners.

got mail

A friend contacted me after reading the draft of the review of EPMAG. With permission:

As you say, no need to be an expert to be sure that no embryologist reviewed the paper. Too much BS in there. And who cares about the exactitude of the mathematical formulas if they apply to a fictional space? […]

Let the guy at his illusions and Organogenesis think they got some genius with a revolutionary theory, delusion seems to be « in » these days. If in the future you find a citation of it, then it will be time to publish a full paper; waiting for this moment don’t help him correct his errors, the « sandwich » episode was funny but now he is aware that he must change the description. Leave him in ignorance. Ignoranus, that’s the word you spotted the other day, isn’t it? V »I »F 😀 Mon Français n’es[t] pas mauvais

He got a point here. Even if his French isn’t perfect 😛

It may be interesting to let thing go further to make a « strike ». Any other opinions available? Use mail, I wouldn’t set up a poll just for that 😉

Three questions; should I:

  • polish the draft and let it go public
  • keep the draft private and document with extracts from the paper (public is without to respect copyrights)
  • keep the « time will tell » attitude, despite the fact that I found it unethical? (the guy is presenting his « work » to students, please consider that before answering)

77 yo

77 years ago, Wetzel nicely described and depicted cell movements at the chick embryo epiblast. And this is from his 1929 paper1
w.jpg

Lire la suite

Stuart Pivart Lifecode

Lifecode – From Egg to Embryo by Self-Organization

A Book Review: « Lifecode: From egg to embryo by self-organization », Mark Chu-Carroll

Lifecode: From egg to embryo by self-organization & Lifecode, PZ Myers

Review of Stu Pivar’s book Lifecode, Jerry Bergman at Denyse O’Leary’s blog

Busted: PR Flacks who ran afoul of the science blogosphere, including a brand new flack for Stuart Pivar who showed up right here on this blog

Science, web, discussions

I posted a quickie on Orac’s and MarkCC post-publication, blog based review of Patrick S. Carroll’s paper « The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors ». Essentially because I’ll use part of MarkCC post for my comment on EPMAG’s review.

Another quite interesting discussion over the Net is the one initiated by SA Smith at ERV and Michael Behe*, discussion which is live actually. Michael Behe, a trained biochemist (so one could say scientist), evolution denialist (partially, less and less), and ID businessman, publishing preferentially general public books than scientific papers.

* this is Google bombing 🙂 part of exchanges on the Net.

controversial theory? nope, controversial attitude

A few days ago, Enro commented on this post. My reply was a quickie and I promised to be more explicit. Here I’m.

Lire la suite

How to triage nonsense

Abortion and breast cancer: The Chicago Tribune feeds the myth

Tag-Teaming with Orac: Bad, Bad Breast Cancer Math in JPANDS

Title by MarkH at Denialism Blog