EconomistPunter t1_ja0ysq5 wrote
I was mentioning yesterday the low quality, dubious nature of too many cannabis studies. And here’s another one…
GivenAllTheFucksSry OP t1_ja0yzgd wrote
The link is to the website for the National Library of Medicine and the study was published in the most recent issue of the journal Antioxidants. What exactly is "dubious" or "low quality" about it? Please explain.
[deleted] t1_ja0z5k7 wrote
[deleted]
EconomistPunter t1_ja0zcc9 wrote
Yes. I wonder how impact factor can be gamed…
The Scimago impact factor is 1. Know what that suggests?
EconomistPunter t1_ja0z9ta wrote
MDPI?
Just because something is linked in the National Library doesn’t make it non-dubious…
GivenAllTheFucksSry OP t1_ja0zdyy wrote
It was published in the journal Antioxidants which has an impact factor of 7.6.
[deleted] t1_ja0zr8y wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja1c1in wrote
[removed]
Im_Talking t1_ja4ro1d wrote
And 10 years ago there were zero (in the US). Pick your poison.
[deleted] t1_ja4vp6w wrote
[removed]
BoreDominated t1_ja0zw4f wrote
I know, right? What were they smoking?
Oh.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments