Comment by foldr
2 days ago
Some fields do have the opposite problem, though, where standards for publication are so high that they prevent publication of useful ideas or results that could be built on by other researchers. I don’t think a published paper should have to meet some kind of gold standard of completeness and correctness. It just has to report something new or interesting with any appropriate caveats attached.
I don't know I'm sure Monsanto put out[0] a lot of papers about how effective glyphosate is but another team decided to test glyphosate against the "inert" ingredients in roundup and found glyphosate was actually the weakest pesticide of the group.
Now, my pet theory is that they knew glyphosate wasn't that great, but talked it up in papers as a sacrificial anode sort of thing "gee shucks it looks like glyphosate based pesticides are harmful to humans (or bees, or fish, or) so we'll stop manufacturing that formulation."
But, Possibly due to academia, they have fanboys and cheerleaders and I think that's why it's still around and in heavy use even though we're not sure it's a good idea.
[0] Bayer Monsanto funds studies at agricultural universities.
P. S. Just watch.