No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g.
> When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.”
People already know what the bullshit results are.
> When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.”
People already know what the bullshit results are.
The people who keep informed on their field (aka "in the know") would then be tainted because they would likely believe a journal would vet the data, process, and researchers before publication.
Unless you mean "in the know" in that they know the entire publishing system is a scam... and the ripples from that are huge.
They're in on it. Without material the journals have nothing to publish. So their inclination is to accept and publish with as little friction as possible.
Publish or Die. Remember? That applies to the whole supply chain, not just poor put upon individual researchers.
Replication was ~50%.
They have an idea of what is bullshit, but there's a very strong culture of 'don't call others out on bad research'