Most published scientific papers are wrong

[Prometheus]

That title is a bit harsh but watch the video

I'm no physicist, but I am the author/co-author of several peer-reviewed papers that have been published in reputable academic journals. I believe that the work I did was rigorous, with acceptable sample sizes, etc. but I also know that there are folks out there who dispute my/our findings. That's part of deal. There are always going to be skeptics. No one has actually been able to scientifically refute the papers so it's really just so much hot air.

The video touches on - but does not really go into - one of the biggest problems: peer review.

"Peer review" is a HUGE buzzword meant to lend authenticity and authority, but the simple fact is that many papers submitted for peer review never make it past the "reading the abstract" phase. Hell, some of them never make it past the "reading the title" phase. If a journal has already published a paper that says "XYZ is the truth" they are loathe to publish a paper saying "XYZ is not the truth" mostly for the simple fact that it might make them looked like smacked asses. It doesn't matter how rigorous the method was. It doesn't matter that sample sizes were larger or that there were minimal data points or even if the P-factor was set beyond the normal range. All that matters is that the journal wants to maintain its reputation... especially when other journals are jumping on the bandwagon of some cause célèbre.

So when a paper doesn't bear the "peer reviewed" label when it does finally get published in some fairly obscure journal 5 years later, it is automatically dismissed as bunkum. This is unfair to the academic community and to the world at large as they are moving forward with ideas based on false suppositions.

"But if this is known, why aren't more scientists and academics screaming about it?"

Because grant money doesn't grow on trees and it generally doesn't get awarded to people who buck the system. This isn't "Contact" where loony billionaires hand out money like party favors. This is the real world where you publish or you perish and you damn well better be publishing papers that bolster the preset viewpoint.

For every paper you hear about with the "peer reviewed" label, there could be hundreds out there with varying viewpoints. Some of them might be absolute shit with no scientific method applied at all, but some of them could be even more rigorous that the ones you've heard about. Some of them might turn your beliefs on their heads, but they have been determined to be anti-agenda and will probably never see the light of day. They'll certainly never receive the coveted "peer reviewed" label.