I'd have to read the article but when talking "reliable papers" I think it's the methodology that's at fault, not the grand idea presented.
Perhaps this is because they publish more novel (hence less likely) results....https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/926740365654159360 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A journal focusing only on the most reliable results sounds like the most boring journal ever.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perhaps it's because they publish more 'climate science' papers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think it's fair to say the more popularly accessible something is the less reliable it becomes, or something like that
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
From the credible source RT: stevestewartwilliams.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Possibly related to attracting readers in competitive market. Publish provocative studies more than those that corroborate popular theories.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Could also be that higher profile results in higher profile journals get more scrutiny.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.