Or people spend a lot of time and money trying to chase down something that a ground "found" and published.
It's very common to read a paper, think it sounds good, then try build on it only to find that you can't.
Peer review is completely flawed. Until it's made more transparent, like at F1000, it's going to continue that way.
Not being a negative Nancy here, but I've been on both sides of the fence (reviewed and had grants/papers reviewed) and it isn't an efficient system. Much like many other things in science, it's an antiquated process that needs to be overhauled to get back to it's "roots".
Peer review is completely flawed. Until it's made more transparent, like at F1000, it's going to continue that way.
Not being a negative Nancy here, but I've been on both sides of the fence (reviewed and had grants/papers reviewed) and it isn't an efficient system. Much like many other things in science, it's an antiquated process that needs to be overhauled to get back to it's "roots".