Peer review
Weak statistical cutoff explains non-reproducible science findings?
Ever wonder whether those psych studies that use college students in unrealistic situations are questionable?
We promise that if you like your psychiatrist, you can keep him …
Nutritionist admits in The Scientist: Much nutrition research is “fatally flawed,” “willfully fraudulent” pseudoscience
Another reason why peer review is hard to fix
Study in Science could fertilize your lawn
Amateur blows up false theory
From The Scientist: Science is “an elitist sport now”?
The Economist weighs in on broken peer review
Collegiality and careerism ruin science?
“Scientists are probably the best judges of science, but they are pretty bad at it.”
Here: The findings, say the authors, show that scientists are unreliable judges of the importance of a scientific publication: they rarely agree on the importance of a particular paper and are strongly influenced by where the paper is published, over-rating science published in high-profile scientific journals. Furthermore, the authors show that the number of times a paper is subsequently referred to by other scientists bears little relation to the underlying merit of the science.