The belief that any research is automatically true is so bogus and so abused that industries and lobbyists came to rely on it. It’s sad that then people blindly push as “it’s science”.
Main issue is the sheer amount of papers being published and the lack of capacity of the body of experts to read all of it. I guess it’s the professionalisation of research.
People publish papers to improve their rankings and not because it’s relevant.
This is a slow-moving disaster for scientific credibility, and therefore for national safety and security.
There's going to be a point within two decades where "reproducibility crisis" is not a localised phenomenon, and "expert" misconduct is paraded out by the papers.
Totally destroying our societies ability to govern itself based on expert information. The early stages are already here (anti-climate, anti-vax, etc.).
I think the outcome is more likely to be that papers from the US are just assumed to be highly suspect in quality sort of how papers from China and India are now.
There actually is more than enough capacity to peer review (). It's just that nobody wants to do it. It costs time and money. Not compensated by the publisher, of course.
() edit: that's raw body count. I wouldn't know how many people could actually spot the errors mentioned in the OP.
> For example, one paper reported mean task scores of 8.98ms and 6.01ms for males and females, respectively, but a grand mean task score of 23ms.
A 9th grader should be able to find that inconsistency, if you give them the table and tell the to find the number that is wrong.
(the other stuff is harder to detect, and I fully understand that you can't request and re-process the raw data for every paper you peer review. Some of these numbers....)
Main issue is the sheer amount of papers being published and the lack of capacity of the body of experts to read all of it. I guess it’s the professionalisation of research.
People publish papers to improve their rankings and not because it’s relevant.