http://thinkevolution.net/archives/228 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:48:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://thinkevolution.net/archives/228#comment-6140 ABP Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:18:17 +0000 http://thinkevolution.net/archives/228#comment-6140 And here's a <a href="http://www.plosone.org/journals/plosone/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002581" rel="nofollow">link</a> to that paper of Andy's, which I myself discuss in the future <a href="http://thinkevolution.net/archives/231" rel="nofollow">here</a>. And here’s a link to that paper of Andy’s, which I myself discuss in the future here.

]]> http://thinkevolution.net/archives/228#comment-4823 Andy Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:11:06 +0000 http://thinkevolution.net/archives/228#comment-4823 My experience with PLoS One has mirrored yours. Ironically though, the paper is creating quite a lot of the popular buzz that Science and Nature tie themselves in knots over. This, of course, can only mean that it was rejected from both on purely scientific grounds, only surviving to publication thanks to "peer review lite" ;) My experience with PLoS One has mirrored yours. Ironically though, the paper is creating quite a lot of the popular buzz that Science and Nature tie themselves in knots over. This, of course, can only mean that it was rejected from both on purely scientific grounds, only surviving to publication thanks to “peer review lite”

]]>