First of all, thanks for your comments (http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-731678-660146.html).

Okay, I will directly jump to the central point which you failed to get yet.  For other critical errors present in the PLoS One article

(http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0053400),

one can read through my comments on this paper in my blog (http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=825582&do=blog&id=657459) & (http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-825582-658058.html).

 

The whole thing was set up on the fundamental presumption for this article, which the US embassy released the true data.

The authors have to prove the original data is true according to their conclusion. Otherwise, they have to carefully draw their conclusion correspondingly, saying something like that in the conclusion section, e.g.  WE (the authors) are not able to ensure the PM2.5 data used in this article is really true. Do you really think that the paper can get published by PLoS One if this is the case?

 

As a scientist, when you write your scientific paper you must prove that your data is true.  Tell me how you can prove it. This is obviously a politic issue!

 

How can you properly set up your modeling when you have your data in question? You only play games with some sort of data, whatever it is real or artificial?

 

Basically, one can make some artificial modeling, and one can draw his/her conclusion based on the artificial modeling if one wants.  But, for what???

 

All in all, it is purely up to your original data. That is why I said with regard to this paper:  这和大街上算命先生有一比拼.

Finally,  after I carefully went through your comments, I would kindly suggest that you, either Dr. Xu Xiao or Prof. Xu Xiao, should read some books related to scientific methodologies.

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自李竞科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-825582-660369.html

上一篇：女性莫入 ® 十男九痔
下一篇：科普®一条粘有精液的裙子引发的思考