In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo said: " In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group, and
not just

H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate, it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there. That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.



Here Henry, since you don't like the way the authors wrote their
article, I'll suggest you follow your own advice:

"The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are considered
experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically
incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint
to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed paper,
this is a reviewed paper."


Go for it.


billo