Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This following paper reminds me of some past interactions and pretentious criticisms and claims by some here.... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4997.pdf In science “there is no bad publicity”: Papers criticized in comments have high scientific impact I. INTRODUCTION In 1543, Nikolaus Copernicus proposed a heliocentric model that will have revolutionized the human view of the universe . The paradigm shift proposed by the new ideas of Copernicus caused an unavoidable controversy in the scientific community of his era, still anchored to the geocentrism. The dispute involved some of the brightest brains of the period –including Galilei, Kepler and Netwon– and lasted for more than two centuries before the complete acceptance of the heliocentric model for the the description of the solar system. The controversy behind the Copernican revolution is just one of the most popular examples of scientific controversies that are part of the history of science. Other well known examples are the controversy which followed the publication of the theory of evolution by Darwin , the Bohr-Einstein debate about the fundamentals of quantum mechanics , and the dispute originated by Wegener with his theory of continental drift . In the course of the history of science, however, not all scientific disputes have been resolved in favor of the original idea that caused the controversy: the observation of N-rays , the theory of cold fusion  and the finding of water memory [7, 8] are all examples of theories or experimental results, associated to fervent scientific controversies, that have been at the end rejected or disregarded by the scientific community. Either resolving in favor or against the scientific findings that originated the disputes, scientific controversies are thought to be necessary for scientific progress [9, 10]. Even if not all the greatest achievements in science have passed through a dispute, as for example the unification of electricity and magnetism by Maxwell, many major steps in science have been controversial. Revolutionary changes are per se controversial because they reverse previous scientific paradigms, and thus necessarily encounter some resistance before getting accepted. Scientific disputes, however, are not only associated to revolutionary discoveries, but they are also part of the process of scientific production: science is, in fact, simultaneously a cooperative and antagonistic enterprise, where scientists both collaborate, with the interchange of information, and compete, through the exchange of criticisms. While the structure of collaboration networks  and the importance of teams for the creation of scientific knowledge [12, 13] have been empirically analyzed, no much is quantitatively known about scientific disputes. Scientific controversies are usually studied in philosophy of science, but only through the analysis of popular case examples and never in quantitative terms [9, 10]. Here for the first time, we provide a quantitative and large-scale study of scientific controversies. We focus our attention on modern scientific disputes identifiable with the publication of formal comments. We systematically study the difference between the citations accumulated by commented and non commented papers, and show that comments can be statistically interpreted as early signs of the future impact of criticized papers. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: As I'm in an awful habit of saying, it's easy for arm chair would be's if they could be's, to criticise any paper they wish from the comfort of their Living room in front of a computer screen, on a forum open to any Tom, Dick and Harry as distinct of course for those that are out there at the coal face. Interesting paper methinks.