If you are trying to say that peer-review in some top-of-the-line scientific journals could fail, I agree. The reviewers are scientists, not police investigators. They review the submitted data, and they usually do a "fantastic" job. I'm not claiming Science is scripture, but it is a whole lot more believable in my book than a few speculations by a group of web-site visitors that support their conclusions with stories from newspapers.
This was published in Science . For the non-academics reading this, you need to know that Science has the most rigorous peer-review process of all the scientific journals. Unless someone here has material evidence that these are forgeries, I would advise all to accept these findings and restrict their critique to the scientific conclusions (that is if you have actually read the paper and have the necessary background to review the conclusions).
Slashdot Mirror
If you are trying to say that peer-review in some top-of-the-line scientific journals could fail, I agree. The reviewers are scientists, not police investigators. They review the submitted data, and they usually do a "fantastic" job. I'm not claiming Science is scripture, but it is a whole lot more believable in my book than a few speculations by a group of web-site visitors that support their conclusions with stories from newspapers.
This was published in Science . For the non-academics reading this, you need to know that Science has the most rigorous peer-review process of all the scientific journals. Unless someone here has material evidence that these are forgeries, I would advise all to accept these findings and restrict their critique to the scientific conclusions (that is if you have actually read the paper and have the necessary background to review the conclusions).