Glyphosate toxicity study in ‘pay for play journal’ based on flawed experimental design

[sharp_stick]

5. I have a friend teaching toxicology

at a University. She provided this paper to a journal club of undergraduates without comment and wasn't surprised at how few of them were able to pick it apart.

She used the next week to start introducing them to the concept of critically reviewing articles and the difference between peer review and pay for play journals. Not all articles in the pay for play are bad but you really have to look at them and all other non peer reviewed work with a much more critical eye.

At first glance the paper looks great. All sciencey...it's got the big words, nasty sounding compounds, an Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results with graphs and charts (hell this one even has error bars) and a Discussion. If you don't understand experimental design and the compounds being tested you'd think it's on the level.