Unregistered Submission
In fact, if Peer 1 is so sloppy and so determined (despite a lack of robust data to the support their argument), I would have serious concerns about their own science and suspect we'll be seeing…
In fact, if Peer 1 is so sloppy and so determined (despite a lack of robust data to the support their argument), I would have serious concerns about their own science and suspect we'll be seeing…
I agree with Peer 3 and Unreg. There are clear differences between the highlighted bands. Will you retract your post Peer 1?
I hit upon this topic, and this entry, for the first time today, and I find the implicit accusation regarding Figure 4B absolutely ridiculous...
In reply to Unregistered Submission: ( August 31st, 2015 9:21am UTC )"The problems for this author seemed to stem from one lab member who as admitted guilt and thus it is unlikely that other papers…
This makes zero difference. You have identified this specific publication as problematic based on one image that clearly shows two different bands...
Some ND Perkins publications sans Benjamin Barre:-https://pubpeer.com/publications/18250452https://pubpeer.com/publications/15775976https://pubpeer...
I agree, there should be no question or doubt before raising something like this in this forum. This lacks this minimal courtesy.... and any integrity from Peer 1.
I agree with unregistered (may 10th 2015). These bands are clearly not the same and blow up and close examination proves this beyond doubt. The problems for this author seemed to stem from one lab…
The images are from the high resolution version of the figure, yet are still grainy. I don't think that pixel differences are evidence one way or another...
This is arguably the most inappropriate issue I have seen raised on Pubpeer. These are not the same, they're not even close. A quick inspection of the pixels in the bands and the background region…
Figure 4B.http://i.imgur.com/S8V8J3a.jpg