[Fels krone]

My experience in acedemia has been with papers that are biological. Peer reviewers will look at a paper and its results but will not be familiar with all of the details involved with the actual research. There are control groups and experimental groups with thier differences and similarities explained, but there are many other variables that go unaccounted for. Sometimes when results are slight, the hypthosis is claimed correct; when in fact any number of those unaccounted variables could have caused the results to skew.

So I dont feel all that great about judging this paper without reading it, but with so many ways to stack the variables and such a small number in the results, I still have my doubts.