And are you able to interpret these studies to see their flaws? What I would focus on more is to look at something called Retraction Watch.
> As for research results that made it to Nature or similar pop science magazines those are usually even more journalistic than scientific.
I'm excluding the articles written by journalists here. But I don't think you know how hard it is to get a paper published in Nature.
> Think of a research "getting into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine" as a filtering process to weed out the BS.
Rather, weed out the danger. And this control, though also flawed to a degree, is very good in my opinion.
> Here's how it works:
There are many things wrong with the whole process, but your view described here is a little too patronizing to actually get your point across.
> Not that the reviewers will go into much bother checking it out, unless the paper is evidently crap.
The reviewers, depending on the quality of the publication, should be experts in the field that the paper is being published from.
And finally:
> Several months/years later, 3-4 other papers will tear down that one, and the cycle continues.
Yes, this is called scientific progress.
And are you able to interpret these studies to see their flaws? What I would focus on more is to look at something called Retraction Watch.
> As for research results that made it to Nature or similar pop science magazines those are usually even more journalistic than scientific.
I'm excluding the articles written by journalists here. But I don't think you know how hard it is to get a paper published in Nature.
> Think of a research "getting into the hands of the doctors actually practicing medicine" as a filtering process to weed out the BS.
Rather, weed out the danger. And this control, though also flawed to a degree, is very good in my opinion.
> Here's how it works:
There are many things wrong with the whole process, but your view described here is a little too patronizing to actually get your point across.
> Not that the reviewers will go into much bother checking it out, unless the paper is evidently crap.
The reviewers, depending on the quality of the publication, should be experts in the field that the paper is being published from.
And finally:
> Several months/years later, 3-4 other papers will tear down that one, and the cycle continues.
Yes, this is called scientific progress.