You must log in or register to comment.
Random online scientist here to tell you: this study has deep flaws. Among them, the way it was conducted and its outcomes. This is for various technical reasons you wouldn’t really understand.
You must be tenured.
As a random commenter, clearly the sample size is too small and they mixed up correlation and causation
The contribution to the community is weak. I recommend the authors to work on their study design and to basically redo everything in good.
Fig. 2: An Illustration of the Peer Review Process
Nerd².
That’s how we science.