The Socratic approach seems appropriate for someone who falsely claimed to have information and is now pretending to only be asking for information to save face.
Why didn’t you remember that when you were posturing without evidence?
And claiming that he knows more, based on his blatant cherry-picking, than not just one, but two people here with actual experience in the field.
Indeed I could, as could you. In a Peaceful Science context, one would think that you’d be embarrassed by relying on him.
I clearly explained why the paper you pseudocited was a joke, didn’t I? Wouldn’t that reason alone make it a gross underestimate? Didn’t that demonstrate that you didn’t even bother to read the paper you had pseudocited? If so, why cite something else that you won’t read?
More importantly, why would anyone who knows much of anything about the subject think that any single citation would be sufficient?
The time to engage was a long time ago. Engagement then would have meant admitting your ignorance instead of posturing and citing a single crap paper that you hadn’t read yourself. Engagement now would have included admitting that you had been fooled by Moran’s cherry-picking.
You have kept cluelessly digging deeper on this point to an amusing and amazing extent.
Because it’s not so simple that one should be comparing one review to another. That being said, pretty much any review of alternative splicing would be better than that one. Can you see the reason why?
Because while explicitly and proudly claiming to be comprehensive, it used only a single search term. It’s a joke.
I should add that they did use additional search terms later, which make the paper an even bigger joke:
We further extended paper-centric curation with specific search phrases in PubMed. Search terms were: “functionally distinct splice isoforms”, “CRISPR alternative splicing”, “alternative splicing knockdown” and “alternative splicing knockout.”
These authors are so bent on debating that they apparently think that there can be only a single term allowed to describe a complex biological phenomenon. They don’t appear to realize that PubMed readily accepts searches that include “OR.”