/sci/ - Science & Math

Most of the time the language used in scientific publications is diplomatic and polite in the extreme even if the authors strongly disagree with the works they reference.

Post exceptions in this thread.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/3/578/583411/On-the-Immortality-of-Television-Sets-Function-in

>The ENCODE results were predicted by one of its authors to necessitate the rewriting of textbooks. We agree, many textbooks dealing with marketing, mass-media hype, and public relations may well have to be rewritten.

>The convoluted rationale for the decision to discard evolutionary conservation and constraint as the arbiters of functionality put forward by a lead ENCODE author (Stamatoyannopoulos 2012) is groundless and self-serving.

>So far, we have seen that as far as functionality is concerned, ENCODE used the wrong definition wrongly. We must now address the question of consistency. Specifically, did ENCODE use the wrong definition wrongly in a consistent manner? We do not think so.

yeah you tell em Graur!

Some fun stuff from peer-reviewed journals.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21393/abstract