Tennant 2018 Nature: Difference between revisions
From Bioblast
(Created page with "{{Publication |title=Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C (2018) Preprints help journalism, not hinder it. Nature 560:553. |info=[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30158616 PMID: 301...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MitoFit page name}} | |||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C (2018) Preprints help journalism, not hinder it. Nature 560:553. | |title=Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C (2018) Preprints help journalism, not hinder it. Nature 560:553. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:25, 26 February 2019
Tennant 2018 Nature
| Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C (2018) Preprints help journalism, not hinder it. Nature 560:553. |
Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C (2018) Nature
Abstract: In suggesting that preprints could distort the public’s understanding of science, Tom Sheldon perpetuates the fallacy that peer review is a guarantee of validity (Nature 559, 445; 2018). There are countless examples to the contrary (see, for instance, A. Margalida and M. À. Colomer PeerJ 4, e1670; 2016). • Keywords: Preprints • Bioblast editor: Gnaiger E
Labels:
Preprints
