Errors found during the Nature review process; this list of errors was made available on 22 December 2005 (the original 14 December 2005 article only provided the number of errors in each article). All reported errors were corrected by 25 January 2006.
The reviews are excerpted from the supplementary information (.doc) (.pdf) document posted on the Nature web site; we believe that it is fair use to quote them in order to respond. See also the blog on the Nature website.
- If an error has been corrected, please add a sub-bullet (
#*) under the item giving the date of the correction and linking to the diff. (See e.g. #Vesalius, Andreas.) - Simply provide the facts in an neutral manner and do not in general sign your edits; reserve your personal commentary for the Talk page.
- If there is any dispute about the error, please link to the article's Talk page for discussion.
- Please do not edit the reviewer comments themselves, except to add links.
- When all the concerns have been addressed please add the {{done}} template next to the title in the section header and in the table below.
In general, please don't just delete disputed statements. Do some homework so that you can replace them with a more accurate description. First, this will prevent someone else from ignorantly re-inserting the same misconception in a year or two. Second, the Nature reviewers are fallible (see below). Third, you may be attacking the symptoms and not the disease, if there are deeper problems with the passage in question than the referee describes.