After sparing this paper a fair bit of attention I feel I’ve wasted it.
Nowhere in the paper could i find in what conditions the test samples were kept during the experiment.
This is pretty basic stuff.
At this stage I’d wage sloshing was the issue.
Reading this part of the methodology:
"2.2 Initial sperm analysis
After liquefaction…
[Two paragraphs later, in the same section: ]
After this first analysis, the 15 sperm samples were split into two fractions. All the samples were exposed to ‘Parabolic flight’ (split 1) and to…"
Did they liquefied the samples and tested like that? Whaa?
The “After this first analysis” should not be in the “2.2 Initial sperm analysis”. It just shouldn’t!
Then I think “15 sperm samples were split into two fractions”. … “the samples were exposed to ‘Parabolic flight’ (split 1)” — splits, fractions, what a mess!!
At this stage I’ve wasted enough.
The paper should be retracted, the reviewers spanked and the editor fired.
After sparing this paper a fair bit of attention I feel I’ve wasted it.
Nowhere in the paper could i find in what conditions the test samples were kept during the experiment. This is pretty basic stuff. At this stage I’d wage sloshing was the issue.
Reading this part of the methodology:
"2.2 Initial sperm analysis
After liquefaction…
[Two paragraphs later, in the same section: ] After this first analysis, the 15 sperm samples were split into two fractions. All the samples were exposed to ‘Parabolic flight’ (split 1) and to…"
Did they liquefied the samples and tested like that? Whaa?
The “After this first analysis” should not be in the “2.2 Initial sperm analysis”. It just shouldn’t!
Then I think “15 sperm samples were split into two fractions”. … “the samples were exposed to ‘Parabolic flight’ (split 1)” — splits, fractions, what a mess!! At this stage I’ve wasted enough.
The paper should be retracted, the reviewers spanked and the editor fired.