I typed wrong then, my apologizes. I was always talking about phd (Since that is what that guy has)
There are a few categories that only take 2 years. But most of them are 4 years. Regardless, your spending multiple years to reach a phd, during which you take exams while your doing it.
A Ph.D takes as long as it takes. There's no real limit on it, unless you have time-limited funding, and even that can be extended if you can prove to a funding committee that you deserve more time and money.
I suggest, if you want to whinge about "people going off topic", you whizz back and address my last "relevant post" tout suite.
I've even reproduced it for you here:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön were published in Nature in the 2000–2001 period. The papers, about superconductivity, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003 the papers were retracted by Nature."
Even the best make mistakes?
So then why bother insisting for a peer review process anyway, since it's clearly unfit for purpose?
You're making steadily less sense.
You'll also note the retraction within 2-3 years.
Biological Exuberance has been published for thirteen years, and no such denouncement is forthcoming.
No. Everything he CLAIMS he used is peer reviewed. Is his actual findings peer reviewed?
What findings? The book is a collation and review of relevant research. It doesn't have "findings".
If I had ten years to waste on you, I could type out the list of references for every chapter, and we could work through those.
Of course, since you wouldn't know a sound methodology if it slapped you in the face, it'd be somewhat pointless.
(Again, I note that you failed to address another salient point: What
do you think the book's pages are filled with, if not the scientific evidence that backs up the claims of each paper?)
