Research papers are not holy gospel.
Mistakes and misconduct are common, and so is back scratching. Even then, the embarrasing revelations and belated retractions have been exploding all century:
http://theconversation.com/what-less...r-review-28823
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1110...26a/box/2.html
Quote:
Prepublication peer review is flawed for three reasons. First, it is restricted to a small number of people, the editors and peer reviewers. To bring the brain power of the entire community of peers into the evaluation process, the paper has first to be made publicly available – that is, published. Second, prepublication peer review is conducted in secret. Since the paper is not yet published, the review process as well is hidden from public scrutiny. Typically, the reviewers are anonymous and their reviews secret. There is thus no strong disincentive to self-serving or subtly biased reviewing. Third, the review process delays publication. When conducted quickly, it may lack thoroughness. When given more time, it slows down the progress of science. The present model suffers from both of these drawbacks.
Establishing the reliability of a finding is only half the challenge. The other half is assessing the implications and importance of a study. Prepublication peer review falls short on both counts.
|
There really is no need to bow before Zod or any holy researcher. I've reviewed my share of technical and scientific papers in my time and simple reality is crap papers are just that, whether through ineptness or malice.
Publish or perish leads to a boatload of manure this century.