Here is another interesting manuscript, available on BiorchivX. I have previously described the purgatory-status of this media, what is in there is somewhere in-between published and unpublished. This one is also addressing an interesting problem, is indexed data from some HiSeq systems flawed? But since it is on BiorchivX, and not in a proper peer-reviewed journal, it is useless. At least in a scientific sense. If they are right, and the data is flawed, it is possible to rush bad data through the journals now, till this appears in a peer-reviewed journal, since BiorchivX does not count as published and should not be cited. If we or someone else check our data and find that this is not much of a problem to us and the system we are using, then it’s hard to explain why we have spent much time and resources testing a hypothesis that no-one have aired properly. But nevertheless, Sinha et al. brings up a topic and an argumentation that is highly interesting and needs to be adressed. Thus we do have a little bit of work after Easter to look over our data from this perspective, making sure that all we have is kosher.