Good eye, Nigel.
... almost calls for an abbott and costello shtick ;-)
Nigel Dyer wrote:
At this point I perhaps ouught to point out my own article in Nature
Genetics. If you have access to the full article you will find it
says that a Nature Genetics paper a year earlier is substantially
flawed because they had based their conclusions on what is in fact an
artefact in the data.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n1/full/ng.3392.html
The original authors would have spotted the artefact if they had
looked at the raw data. If you dont look at the data the paper
appears fine, which is why it got through peer review. You cant
expect the unpaid peer reviewers to load and re process the raw data.
I only checked it because the papers conclusions conflicted with the
results that we were getting
