On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:53:48 +1030, Surfer wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:23:38 +1100, B J Foster
wrote:

Arthur Brain wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:22 pm, "o nb o" wrote:
So Easy A 6th Grader Can Do It!

How many 6th-graders publishing in Nature, Bozo?


One of the fall-outs from the exposure of the emails referring to a
'trick' and 'hiding the decline' is ipso-facto proof that Nature either
did not peer-review the articles or the peer-review process was flawed.
(No-one could possibly have repeated experiments with non-existent data)

That is incorrect.

The reason is that independent repetition of experiments requires other
research groups to independently collect THEIR OWN RAW DATA.

Nope, much research and claims made has been found to be false when the
experimental data was independently reviewed. Basic mathematical errors
do crop up and go unnoticed. Also successful complex calculations also
use formula that are grossly simplified for practical but many people
forget the core conditions that allow the simplifications and some
ignored factors turn out to be significant in the experiment.