Editor rating: 8 / 10Kevin Black –– The authors do real science here, following up on an initial finding from a pilot study and reporting the outcome appropriately. That may sound obvious, but in the real world of research these days it is a delightful breath of fresh hair.
Editor rating: 9 / 10Jafri Abdullah –– the number of clusters have always been debatable,
Editor rating: 8 / 10Tjeerd Boonstra –– The article re-examines the results of an influential paper and challenges the idea that social media data analysed on a county-level may provide a reliable predictor of health outcomes. The authors raise several questions on the reliability of data and study design that need to be addressed for this field going forward.
Section Editor rating: 7 / 10Claire Fletcher-Flinn –– I agree with the reviewers comments re causality.
Section Editor rating: 7 / 10Stephen Macknik –– This advance will potentially have significant impact in diagnosis and therapeutic tracking for mild cognitive impairment.
Editor rating: 7 / 10Tjeerd Boonstra –– The paper further enhances our understanding of muscle mechanics and muscular contraction
Editor rating: 7 / 10Jafri Abdullah –– Methodology looks interesting and reproducible
Section Editor rating: 7 / 10Stephen Macknik –– The use of illusory size changes to body parts—as an analgesic method—is amazing and new. The public will take notice.
Editor rating: 7 / 10Antonio Palazón-Bru –– A scientific evidence to use the German version of the analyzed questionnaire.
Editor rating: 7 / 10Joao Rocha –– In this theoretical paper, the authors have calculated the safe occupational distance for transcranial magnetic stimulation. Of importance, they have indcated the use of a more conservative distance (0.96-1.46 m) instead of 0.7 m found in the literature.
Discussing these articles