

How much time (if any) should we spend criticizing research that’s fraudulent? - danso
http://andrewgelman.com/2014/03/06/much-time-spend-criticizing-research-thats-fraudulent-crappy-just-plain-pointless/

======
lutusp
The solution is obvious, and it's modeled elsewhere in society. Movies have
critics that assign zero to five stars. Juries either sentence you to death or
send you home. Facebook asks visitors to vote thumbs up or down.

We need a panel of scientifically skilled and trained (meaning very skeptical)
people to maintain a changing database of scores that rank individual research
projects as well as scientific and pseudoscientific fields. I would have
suggested public voting, but the average citizen doesn't understand either
science or the central role of skepticism.

Central to a scientific outlook is the assumption that an idea is false until
it's supported by reliable evidence, the exact opposite of the outlook of the
man on the street.

Whoa! Already I have a more entertaining idea -- set up two databases, one
that reflects popular opinion, another that reflects the views of
scientifically trained people. Then, mostly for laughs, see how they differ.

