paper mills

My recent chat with John Batchelor broached the important subject of flawed, non-reproducible scientific studies that find their way into journals. It seems that replicating results is as rare as finding a unicorn at a science fair.
In Part 1 of this series, we presented evidence that a not insignificant amount of published science and the “knowledge” resulting from it is wrong. There are many reasons, including experimental carelessness, differences in how researchers approach statistical analyses, journals’ bias against publishing negative results, and outright dishonesty by investigators. Part 2 describes how activist scientists can use meta-analyses to manipulate data to reach a predetermined, but flawed, conclusion.