born 
living
host 
Scientists- in what % of papers you read does the main body of the paper fail to support the assertions made in the title or abstract?
-
I don't just mean misrepresentations or outright lies -- these are not very often. I'm asking about the failure to support claims in general, so e.g. if you read the paper and are not convinced that e.g. causal identification is robust, that counts
Many times coauthors and reviewers ask for things to added when it clearly makes no sense 
as lead author you may not have much choice