Fewer than half replicate. I would estimate a lot of that comes from softer research malpractice.
Being confused about the value is a fair reaction. It is high; without scientific research, though, we wouldn't have vaccines or monoclonal antibodies. On the other hand, it is lower than assumed, and trusting individual papers and peer review processes is a mistake.
How much value would Facebook have if it were your only source of information? A lot, actually. Imperfect information is valuable too.
I haven't seen many careful reviewers. It's an anonymous process, and no reason to put in any effort at all. On the procrastination list, peer reviews are the very last thing scientists do.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea...
Fewer than half replicate. I would estimate a lot of that comes from softer research malpractice.
Being confused about the value is a fair reaction. It is high; without scientific research, though, we wouldn't have vaccines or monoclonal antibodies. On the other hand, it is lower than assumed, and trusting individual papers and peer review processes is a mistake.
How much value would Facebook have if it were your only source of information? A lot, actually. Imperfect information is valuable too.