A fascinating study has found that sniffing female tears significantly reduced male aggression and decreased activity in aggression-related brain networks. It’s suggested that the effect, which is caused by chemical signals in tears and is also seen in rodents, serves a protective function.
The journal isn’t such a high prestige journal. It’s actually a new one with open access, which doesn’t attract best studies. Combined with the fact it’s a psychological study, which is hard to replicate, and somehow the authors employed MRI, which doesn’t really prove anything by itself, I think the authors knew it wouldn’t be perceived as the best quality article.
Your first statement is completely wrong.
PLOS Biology, the journal this article is published in, is founded in 2003, so hardly a new journal, and has an impact factor of ~9, which means that it IS a prestigious journal.
I’m sure biology publications started 20 years ago. /s
The impact factor is rather high, I agree, but IF also a statistic that’s often criticized for unreliability.
I’d take it back if someone in biology tells me their community submit their work there, but otherwise I’d be skeptical. It’s also weird for a 20 year old journal to accept everything biology. Good new journals tend to specialize.
So you are wrong and hand wave to make yourself feel better? You seem like a real winner.
I don’t know. I think we’ll talk after you learned reading comprehension.
“Hey man, I fucked yo wiiiiifeee”. “Quickly! smell my finger, how do you feel?”
FWIW, it’s also not a new idea. I remember reading something similar years ago, except it was about sexual aggression.
What about this particular paper is difficult to replicate?