Yes? Title has no mention about specific regions. Abstract mentions specific regions. Even your comment is clickbait: you only include the title and a sentence that does not mention specific regions, despite you being aware of it, since you presumably read the abstract.

Let's stop pretending "peer-reviewed" means anything, please.

Means a lot more than a comment on Hacker News.

your comment has been peer-reviewed.

it was found to be subjective and unsupported.

Peer review raises the bar, but that bar is quite low, and not high enough to ensure anything like scientific truth.

I will leave it here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/19/stanford-pre...

I guess someone "peer reviewed" all his papers

This is a bad faith and ignorant take. As with anything at the edge of our knowledge, it’s not bulletproof, but peer review certainly does mean plenty. It is one of the most rigorous standards we have for the validity of observation and theories.

I think reproducibility is the gold standard. It’s hard to call peer review as practiced today “rigorous” when it comes to discerning truth.

Is it? If I'm not mistaken this is exactly what journal editors, and reviewers, claim each and every time a new scandal blows up.

Yes, a comment on a website that just says “no” is way more truthy and should be taken at face value. Anything published and peer reviewed can just be assumed to be false.

Great call. Thanks for really bringing up the level of discourse.

Nature is not immune and has been leveraging clickbait articles as of not so late.

A significant portion of peer reviewed papers are biased, poorly backed claims making junk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

This article highlights some (known) deficiencies, but doesn't seem to remotely support your assertion of “significant portion” being junk.

It also seems extremely likely that such things vary wildly by field, journal, etc.

Which is to say that throwing the whole thing out in preference to a completely unsourced and anonymous comment on HN seems, frankly, idiotic.

They do vary wildly yes.

Even within the same publication.

Nature has historically proven to be one of the top journal. Not taking that away from them. But being published by nature and peer reviewed does not mean such article cannot use a clickbait title and/or be non scientific.

So you concede that saying a “significant portion” was an outright lie with no basis in reality?

No I wouldn't concede that.

I took some precaution and made sure to not mention an estimate of what that portion represents. I think it fair to call it significant given it isn't breaking news.

Blame me for not providing references proving it is based on some interpretation of reality not only I, have.

Can you explain which of the article's claims you believe are unsubstantiated?

I was not referring to the article claims but to the argument that it was "peer reviewed"

As if that meant nature or the title couldn't be a clickbait, or the conclusion/claims dubious. They can be, that's all I called out.

The thing is: all five colonies are close together, on the peninsula. So "widespread" is false, incorrect, a lie, pick your favorite term.

So, yes, clickbait.

Article says there are 600–3000 penguins per colony. Charitably, let’s say the authors studied 15,000 penguins. Total penguin population estimate: 600,000. So this survey counted at most 2.5% of all penguins by reasonable estimates.

“Not a single emperor penguin chick survived” seems unsupported.