Politics and subjective results, in other words and not science in any way shape or form.

All primarily driven by cash flow? Continuing contract fulfillment? Ego?

There are lots interests involved in this process and true science and new discoveries apparently take a back seat to most all others.

Andrew Winter: FYI, I reported these stories, and others, repeatedly over the years. Search BtB using the search terms “replicate” and “paper”. There was also this 2017 post: “Less than 1% of all science papers follow scientific method”. This quote from this second post is most clarifying:

“They cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want.”

Did you guys miss this? Nature Magazine actually broke a story I can’t find anymore about a year or two earlier on this topic. They were really alarmed. CUSTOMERS who were trying to duplicate studies published in Nature could NOT replicate the results. That led to this article in 2016.
https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a.
Which was followed up in this one two years later.
https://www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz

Your dang gone RIGHT peer reviewed articles are being rejected. The Danged Peer Reviews are being bought and paid for “in kind”. That 2016 review is absolutely DAMNING.

You have a whole category of “The Uncertainty of Science” Well these two articles should be at the top of your list. As I write this I am searching for anything I can find that has to do with “Duplication Crisis” or “Replication Crisis”. It has finally found its way to Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

The article sites an earlier work,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
that goes back further than I knew until now, and may represent the beginning of the cascade of complaints that caused NATURE to create that review panel.

Folks what this means is very very serious. If you read any kind of announcement of conclusions in a “peer reviewed” study you stand a much much greater chance of being correct if you just GUESS that it’s all B.S. than if you assume it is any kind of accurate.

There is no Science to Follow! Each and every person who crys that “we must follow the science” is preaching REGLION not Science.

This is a mess of almost unimaginable proportions!

On the other hand, politically incorrect papers are being denied access for pre-peer reviewed status. Here’s one that was pulled one day after being submitted for peer review.
12 minute deep dive into the lancet research and who pulled it without a credible explanation.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/new-covid-vaccine-bombshell-emerges-facts-matter-5422680

Not really, he was a real PhD, just a misguided one.

One member did get published (Pogono) at last. He showed his work.

If you tout “tired light” or “electric universe hokum…you better show your maths.

I’ve been trying to write a book about Astrophysics. However, so much of what I see indicates there are simply too many scientific theories that are invalid. I rather doubt that’s actually what your article is about, though it might be, in part. Regardless, I’m finding my writings are having to shift from simply writing about Astrophysics to dedicating my writings (website) to be about proposing my findings as ‘alternative theories’, and then seeing if I can get mainstream science to accept my findings.

I’m only writing this in that, that 13,750% increase in retractions of peer-reviewed scientific papers could easily quadruple as I complete writing / publishing more of my research findings. I don’t expect you to acccept my none-peer reviewed research, and you shouldn’t. However, just make a little note in the back of your head. Eventually, you’ll find out if I’m write.

My current website (book) is progressing slowly and not ready for public viewing.

I was skeptical, but the study’s approach, being conducted by a professor of Journalism, using an analysis by grad students of hundreds of news articles, seemed to lend a credibility to the result. That is, it did until I read a note at the very end.

In the literal last sentence, the date range of the news articles used in the analysis was mentioned. I had naturally expected that it would be sometime in the summer of 2000, as this was in either September or October as I recall. But no, the date range was in the summer of the PRIOR YEAR. The upshot was that this was not an analysis of articles about opponents McCain and Obama at all, but about those two compared to their PRIMARY opponents of last year!

So had I read the source articles, I would have been reading about McCain, the media’s beloved anti-Bush “maverick”, and about the then-upstart Obama, who was challenging “Her Inevitableness” Hillary Clinton, for the nomination!

The SciAm article was clearly headlined to lead the reader to assume that he or she would be learning the truth about the comparative media coverage of the candidates in the upcoming Presidential election. In fact, the comparison was how each was compared to someone else, about a year ago!

The next time I got a renewal card for SciAm, it went into the trashcan!

“The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat. Despite its name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to square the circle, although it does imply various incorrect values of the mathematical constant π, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The bill, written by a physician who was an amateur mathematician, never became law due to the intervention of Prof. C. A. Waldo of Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote.

The mathematical impossibility of squaring the circle using only compass and straightedge constructions, suspected since ancient times, had been rigorously proven 15 years previously, in 1882 by Ferdinand von Lindemann. Better approximations of π than those implied by the bill have been known since ancient times.”