One of the good things of the peer review process is that if you publish, you’re eventually going to have to review papers for conferences or journal in your (perceived) area of expertise. Sometimes you get pearls such as “the resulting results of algorithm X are resulted” (true story), or “the dynamics of the attorney of yes no plasmodium” (also true), but sometimes bad science comes from the bad presentation of results.
This is also a (essentially true) story. So I’m reviewing a paper that proposes some kind of method for predicting the value of (some) parameter that minimizes some error function. The method is fast, but not analytic. The graph in the paper looks something like: