http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 Science 28 August 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6251 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716 Nosek B. , et al., Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science 35 of 97 reports of statistically significant results published in three major psychology journals from 2008 could be duplicated. In light of https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/peer-review-your-own-papers.829065/ which discusses reviewing your own paper for publication, this whole topic needs discussion. - 'reliability of research'. My point of view: We already have enough non-scientists fabricating garbage like 'autism is caused by vaccinations' without adding to the pile of stuff we have to refute. For example: Dealing with 'wrong' research comes across to the non-scientist with a strong subtext - science based on research may not be reliable, so why should I accept it? To them it could sound like more of a politcal debate. We just went throught the whole deal of removng cholesterol - the molecule - from top of the list as a cause of heart disease. Everyday people and physicians trying to communicate with Joe Public may still use the terms 'cholesterol' and 'bad cholesterol' to mean CLDL levels. Old bad research is really hard to get past sometimes. Especially when Captain Kirk (Wm. Shatner) was pushing margarine made with trans-fats and talking about cholesterol for years on TV here in the US. People are sometimes floored when I tell them I should eat several eggs per week. -- I have a slightly damaged heart.