Hacker News Reader

I was reasonably impressed with Nature's new(ish) reporting checklist, at least, which exceeds what most other journals are doing: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/checklist.pdf

Yet Nature regularly publishes studies which are not properly statistically powered or with wrong p-values conclusions.

For example?

"The pot calling the kettle black" is only meant to argue against a defensive counter-accusation. It is same idea as "two wrongs don't make a right"

The pot can legitimately call the kettle black and vice versa. They both have the problem.

There are two common interpretations of the "The pot calling the kettle black", neither of which is as you describe.

This is an editorial by an external author. It does not necessarily represent Nature's leadership's position.

If they could make progress on the problem, I might forgive many kettles, I mean ills.