Okay, three academics getting papers they knew where utter bullshit published and considered great scholarship was one thing. Now, we have a respected journal publishing a horrific paper on homeopathy. The peer review process and the issues with p-hacking are undermining the current scientific process. What to do then?
I lean to not publishing without duplication. I always said that if I hit the lottery, particularly one of those big payouts, I’d start a lab for the purpose of just duplicating experiments. Kind of a UL for experiments.