<She wrote that as tongue 'n cheek, and it actually represents a sign of humility and willingness to be open to contrary points of view, signs of a good engineer/scientist. As for her credentials, if you follow her posts on dpreview you'll see she one of the most informed technical minds for camera sensor info. To cite a specific example, she reverse-engineered Nikon's long-exposure noise algorithm, identified serious problems with it, devised a much improved alternate algorithm which was relayed to Nikon by Thom Hogan and then later adopted by Nikon in subsequent camera designs.>
Right. Scientific GARBAGE. There are many scientists on this forum, myself included. This doesn't count, sorry. In science you don't get to "tongue 'n cheek" or get it right the majority of the time. Either you do good science that's meaningful or you don't. DxO mark does NOT. We've all read that link and they do NOT disclose how scores are done/derived from the measurements.
Besides, DxO mark isn't relevant. Despite them scoring Nikon/Sony higher and higher against Canon product head to head, Canon still went from a 4% market share lead 4 years ago to a now 20% market share lead. Nobody cares or nobody believes because of just that: The garbage "science" they are doing.