Honest Referee Report:
Let me first restate the abstract in different words to assuage any lingering doubts somebody might have that I didn't in fact read the paper.
The paper in fact fine. Like stuff like this gets published all the time. Worse than this in fact.
Let me first restate the abstract in different words to assuage any lingering doubts somebody might have that I didn't in fact read the paper.
The paper in fact fine. Like stuff like this gets published all the time. Worse than this in fact.
The paper does not in fact start an entirely new field of human endeavor, nor will it represent the final word in a long standing debate. It will win no scientific prose prizes, nor is it a series of incoherent non sequiturs.
It is in fact a competently executed foray into a reasonably interesting topic, which deploys currently accepted methodology. It is in fact logically possible to conjure threats to the ID strategy, none of which would however sustain a paper on their own.
However I will now propose adding a number of controls which can only be measured with great error, so that in fact if their results are invalidated it will most likely be due to bad luck rather than some deep structural fault.
Why you ask? Well I am concerned that if I write "it's a great paper, publish as is" the other two reviewers will come back with "uh, they are regressing y on y" or some enormous glaring mistake I missed, so I am just going to hedge my bets a little. But really the paper is fine.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
