Studies suggest that Wikipedia provides a good starting point for research, but sometimes suffers from significant omissions and inaccuracies. But an investigation by Nature comparing Wikipedia to the Encyclopædia Britannica suggested a near similar level of accuracy in terms of its natural science articles; however, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., described this study as ""fatally flawed"", to which Nature later responded, stating that its study was perfectly neutral. Other studies have concluded that Wikipedia's coverage of history is significantly broader and deeper than that of Encarta, while being just as accurate, and that obvious vandalism is usually reverted quickly. In a study of Wikipedia as a community, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in wiki software create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that a ""creative construction"" approach encourages participation. Wikipedia has been viewed as a social experiment; founder Jimmy Wales has stated that it is not intended as one, though that is a consequence.