“The paper has been blind peer-reviewed and published in a highly reputable journal, which is the gold standard in scientific corroboration. Thus, all protocol was followed to the letter and the work is officially supported.”

Robert MacDonald points us to this news article by Esther Addley: It’s another example of what’s probably bad science being published in a major journal, where other researchers point out its major flaws and the author doubles down. In this case, the University of Bristol has an interesting reaction. It’s pulled down its article praising …