More what you ask?
More evidence that too much of science is NOT peer reviewed and any way that matters and at times, not even fact checked !
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/03 ... _research/
A whole pile of “this is how your brain looks like” MRI-based science has been invalidated because someone finally got around to checking the data.
The problem is simple: to get from a high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging scan of the brain to a scientific conclusion, the brain is divided into tiny “voxels”. Software, rather than humans, then scans the voxels looking for clusters.
When you see a claim that “scientists know when you're about to move an arm: these images prove it”, they're interpreting what they're told by the statistical software.
Now, boffins from Sweden and the UK have cast doubt on the quality of the science, because of problems with the statistical software: it produces way too many false positives.