I agree with you. But what part of the blog post, or the peer review process in general, do you think ensures that only true ideas get in front of eyeballs?
I can write anything I want in the paper, but at the end of the day my experiments could do something slightly (or completely) different. Where are reviewers going to catch this?
I can write anything I want in the paper, but at the end of the day my experiments could do something slightly (or completely) different. Where are reviewers going to catch this?