IIQ 4.27% 61.0¢ inoviq ltd

Nothing new except the Peer Review part. Wild claims or false...

  1. 4,144 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 683
    Nothing new except the Peer Review part. Wild claims or false data are quickly shot down by peer review. Think of a Hoax by in the Lancet by Andrew Wakefield. Not turning this to a pro or anti vax thread just using its case study.

    The Lancet and http://journals.plos.org both have significant barriers to publication of rubbish. Plos have http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication
    and the review process http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process

    Noted 208 views of the paper so far. 4 Doctors I know very well use PUBMED (NCBI) at times for research. Peer review is not just on PLOS. PUBMED links to it. No Doctor or Scientist in their right mind would publish faulty or erroneous data. It would kill their career in seconds. Andrew Wakefield was stuck off the UK Medical Register due to his deliberately faulty publication in the Lancet of his beliefs not science.
    Last edited by NavyDiver: 14/08/17
 
watchlist Created with Sketch. Add IIQ (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
Last
61.0¢
Change
0.025(4.27%)
Mkt cap ! $56.13M
Open High Low Value Volume
60.0¢ 62.5¢ 60.0¢ $30.39K 50.29K

Buyers (Bids)

No. Vol. Price($)
1 1018 60.0¢
 

Sellers (Offers)

Price($) Vol. No.
65.0¢ 2608 1
View Market Depth
Last trade - 15.27pm 28/03/2024 (20 minute delay) ?
Last
61.0¢
  Change
0.025 ( 6.09 %)
Open High Low Volume
60.0¢ 61.0¢ 60.0¢ 10898
Last updated 13.12pm 28/03/2024 ?
IIQ (ASX) Chart
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.